The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Ministerial Statement

Provisional Out-turn for 2007-2008

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the provisional out-turn for 2007-08.

Peter Robinson: In June 2007, the Assembly voted to approve the spending plans for 2007-08 that were inherited from direct rule Ministers, and which provided for current expenditure of £8,259,000,000 and capital expenditure of £1,409,000,000 in budgetary terms. Today, I will report on the extent to which Departments have spent the money for which they bid and were subsequently allocated. In headline terms, the underspend by Departments was £177 million in respect of current expenditure, and £76 million in respect of capital investment.
Members will be well aware that, through the Budget, Estimates and in-year monitoring processes, the Assembly continues to spend a significant amount of time and effort debating the funding that is allocated to Departments. That reflects the importance of prioritising the limited funding that is available to the Executive in order to deliver the best possible public services to the people of Northern Ireland. However, Departments often put too great an emphasis on the size of their budget, rather than on the outcomes that they can achieve. Given that imbalance, and the relative lack of robust and timely information on outcomes, the actual expenditure of Departments against their plans must be considered as a proxy for delivery.
There is little point in the best-laid plans being put in place if Departments do not subsequently deliver the planned services, primarily by spending the funds that have been made available to them. Although it is critical that Departments do not overspend, it is equally important to ensure that — to the greatest extent possible, and with due regard to value for money — the amounts that are provided are spent. Significant levels of underspend imply that fewer services have been delivered than had been planned, and that resources have been retained when they should have been redeployed to improve services in other areas.
In that context, I shall provide Members with detailed figures of the actual spending levels by Northern Ireland Departments in 2007-08, with particular reference to performance against plans. Details of the provisional out-turns for each Department — covering current expenditure and capital investment — are set out in tables 1 and 2, which are attached to the printed copy of my statement.
In my statement of 25 June 2007, I highlighted the fact that the Executive inherited a situation in which, in recent years, Northern Ireland Departments had underperformed when maximising the spend from funds that had been allocated to them. That situation has also been recognised by the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which advocated a 1% target for the maximum underspend rate for current expenditure.
The provisional out-turn returns for 2007-08 indicate that the total current expenditure by Departments was £8·2 billion, which represents real terms growth of 4·9% in 2007-08. However, Departments spent £177 million, or 2·1%, less than had been planned. That headline rate is unchanged from 2006-07, and, given the significant efforts over the past year to improve and raise the profile of financial management, it indicates a somewhat disappointing performance by Departments.
Members will not be surprised to hear that the overall underspend figures mask significant variations among Departments. The Department for Regional Development (DRD) was the best performer, with a 0·9% underspend, and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) was the worst, with a 3·9% underspend. My Department had the fourth-highest underspend at 3·1%; however, that is a significant improvement on the previous year, when it underspent by 10·7%. Although the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) clearly has some way to go to be the example to others that it should be, that improvement on past performance demonstrates the extent of change that is possible with a sustained focus on the issue.
Other Departments such as the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) also managed to reduce their underspend rate compared with last year, and I urge them to continue the good work. However, it is disappointing that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), DEL and the Department of the Environment (DOE) performed worse in 2007-08 than in the previous year. Although all Departments can rehearse excuses and highlight supposedly extenuating circumstances, the simple fact is that either their planning or their delivery mechanisms were deficient.
Although I recognise that some Departments made good progress, in general, Departments are still some way from the ultimate goal of reducing the underspend rate to the Committee of Finance and Personnel’s target of 1% or less, and only one Department — DRD — managed to achieve that benchmark in 2007-08. The challenge for other Departments — including my own — is to match that performance level.
In recent years, an area of particular concern has been the spending performances of ring-fenced central funds, which have often experienced substantial levels of underspend. Although the underspend rate for priority funding packages is lower than in previous years, it is still considerably higher than the average for Departments in current expenditure and capital investment. For example, the environment and renewable energy fund underspent by 13·5%, and the children and young people’s fund underspent by 4·3% on current expenditure. Those levels of performance justify the Executive’s decision, as part of the Budget, to mainstream those funds into departmental baselines in order to engender a greater sense of responsibility in Departments for the associated projects.
That decision also obliged those Departments to consider how much of their increased allocations should continue to be targeted at areas that were previously funded from central funds. It did not mean — as some Departments appear to have suggested — that they could simply take the additional funding, allocate it to something else and then claim that they had no money left to meet pressures in areas that were previously funded from central funds.
Given the greater potential for capital projects to be delayed and their greater propensity to be one-off or innovative in nature, Members will be aware that the percentage underspend on capital projects has traditionally been higher than on current expenditure.
The provisional out-turn returns indicate that Northern Ireland Departments have delivered £1·1 billion in 2007-08 in net investment. That is the highest figure on record, representing real-terms growth of 9·3% on the year before.
The consequence of that level of actual expenditure is that Departments have spent £76 million — or 6·3% — less than had been planned for. Compared with the performance of Departments under direct rule — when the rate of underspend reached 18·2% in 2005-06 — that outcome represents significant progress on past performance.
However, although overall performance is reasonable, that outcome is the consequence of strong performances by two Departments: DHSSPS and DRD. I commend both Departments on their management of capital projects. Notwithstanding, below that high standard lies a great variation in performance between Departments, ranging from an 8% overspend by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), to a 34·6% underspend by DARD. In total, five Departments had an underspend of 15% or more.
I acknowledge the fact that DFP has performed particularly well as regards capital expenditure, with only DHSSPS and DRD having a lower level of percentage underspend in 2007-08. That is in contrast with the position in 2004-05, when DFP had an underspend of 88·3%, and hence had spent only 12% of its allocated funding.
Although the headline performance is one of continued improvement, as with current expenditure, the position needs to be seen in the context of the substantial amounts of reduced requirements and re-profiling requested by Departments during the year. If Departments are serious about delivering on time the infrastructural improvements set out in the investment strategy, that level of performance must not be repeated in the coming years.
Although I have focused on the importance of avoiding excessive levels of underspend, it is equally important to emphasise that Departments should ensure that they do not overspend against their approved allocations. Unfortunately, two such cases have arisen this year: the Department for Social Development (DSD) and OFMDFM. Although the Executive will, of course, want a full explanation for the reasons for that overspend and will wish to consider the appropriate response, it is also essential that we ensure that, as has been the case in the past, an unreasonable fear of overspend does not drive higher levels of underspend.
I have heard it said many times that one gets shot for overspend, but simply flogged for underspend. However, I believe firmly that we must ensure that there is a proportionate view of those two wrongs. In that context, I ask which is really worse: a small overspend, or a failure to deliver hundreds of millions of pounds of public-service improvements both promised to and paid for by the public, at least in part, through their regional-rate payments?
The answer is, of course, that both are to be avoided, but we must recognise that, if we are to reduce substantially the level of underspend, the risk of overspend will increase. I appreciate that that is a difficult issue, as the principle of avoiding overspend at any cost has rightly been at the heart of public-expenditure control for many years. I will want to consider that issue further with my Executive colleagues, but I am clear that, as in other areas, we need to be prepared to challenge accepted practice if we are to secure the sort of improvements that the Executive aspire to achieve.
Although I have set out the 2007-08 provisional out-turn position for individual Departments, the Executive as a whole are facing the key emerging issue of equal pay for some grades in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Although more work is required to establish precisely the level of funding that will be needed to address that problem, it is clear that the costs will be material and will have clear implications for public services here.
One option that we are currently considering is whether some of the underspend declared by Departments for 2007-08 should be used to fund part of the equal-pay claim. That will mean that that funding would then not be available for future years, and hence would have a clear cost as regards the future delivery of public services.
The Executive must, therefore, take great care in balancing the need to ensure fair and equitable treatment for staff with the imperative of delivering the best possible services for all of the people of Northern Ireland. Work on that is progressing, and the Assembly will be given an update later this month as part of the June monitoring statement.
The challenge of financial management manifests itself as not only the level of spend against plans, but as the monthly profile of spend throughout the year. Departments continue to demonstrate a clear profile of steady spend throughout the year, with a significant surge in expenditure towards the year end.
Although there may be legitimate reasons for that, it raises concerns whether that expenditure represents value for money or simply reflects a “use it or lose it” mentality in Departments. Despite concerns regarding underspend, and the timing of access to the Executive’s end-year flexibility (EYF) stock, I prefer the adage that “no spend is better than bad spend”. It is important that Departments recognise that, under the Treasury’s existing end-year flexibility arrangements, although the amounts underspent might not be automatically available in subsequent years, they will be available at some point and are not, therefore, lost to the Executive.
Furthermore, the skewing of expenditure towards the end of the year implies that spending has been delayed. Although that phenomenon is not recognised in the headline figures, months, weeks or even days of delay can be important with regard to public services, whether new textbooks for schools or the repair of potholes.
Although the starting figures on underspend send a strong signal to Departments that they need, substantially, to raise their game with regard to performance in general and financial management in particular, there is an equally compelling message to those Ministers who seek to press for additional funds. Over the past 12 months, I have been subject to subtle, and some not-so-subtle, approaches from Ministers to increase the funding allocated to their Departments. With resources becoming increasingly tighter, I — and, I am sure, my successor — will not countenance the allocation of funding that simply sits unused. That is not acceptable to me, as I am sure that it is not acceptable to Members, or to the general public, who have waited long enough for the return of locally-accountable Government to deliver improved services.
Although I commend the progress that has been made by some Departments in reducing underspend, much more can be achieved, individually and collectively. Although ultimate responsibility for that rests with accounting officers in Departments, there is a role for DFP, Ministers and the Assembly. The steps that have so far been taken to improve financial management skills and raise the priority given to financial issues may not yet have had sufficient time to bed in, and will, therefore, have an impact on the level of underspend for 2008-09 and beyond.
That on its own, however, may not be enough, and other options must be considered to provide a stronger incentive for improved performance. Those include setting targets and sanctions at organisational and individual levels, and taking greater account of a Department’s underspend performance when prioritising funding, or even revisiting the Budget allocations. Moreover, Assembly Committees have a role to play, and I look forward to reports of the challenges from Committees to their respective Departments on their underspend performance.
The Executive has set out a challenging programme of work to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland over the next three years. We must not fall at the first hurdle as a result of an inability by Departments to carry out the fundamental act of spending the funds that have been allocated to them, thereby delivering the planned level of services. Spending plans will be informed by the ability of Departments to spend what they have been allocated, or to make that money available to others as early as possible in the process.

Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, and support its robust criticisms about underperforming Departments. The figure of 2.1%, or £177 million, underspent in current expenditure is disappointing, and is the highest rate of underspend in the past four years.
That performance is especially disappointing given the tight public expenditure environment and the need to maximise the impact of available resources. The Minister referred to the target that the Committee for Finance and Personnel proposed in its report on the draft Budget for 2008-2011, which advocated a maximum rate of underspend of 1% for current expenditure. The Committee arrived at that conclusion following analysis of previous patterns of underspend here and in other jurisdictions. Experience and practice elsewhere have demonstrated that that target is achievable. Therefore, given the emphasis that the Department and the Committee have placed on robust financial manage­ment in Departments, what additional steps can be taken to address the culture of underspend in Departments, which has been inherited by the Executive?
Will the Minister also state how the underspend in his Department has affected delivery of services in 2007-08?

Peter Robinson: I thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for taking a great interest in the performance and underspend of each Department. Additional steps could be taken, but some of those might be considered to be too revolutionary to be accepted by the Executive. For example, at one point, I asked officials to rework mechanisms in the Civil Service so that the Department of Finance and Personnel could have a presence in the finance sections of each Department. That would have enabled DFP to obtain a better level of information, because it is only after a financial year is over that DFP obtains a clear picture of each Department’s final position.
As has been seen, Departments hold on to money unnecessarily, rather than give it up at an earlier stage to enable it to be spent elsewhere. At an individual level, accounting officers could be made more accountable with respect to underspends — for instance, it could be one of the factors taken into account in relation to bonuses earned in the senior levels of the Civil Service.
However, one option that is open to us all — and which I would consider seriously — is that where there is a pattern of underspending by a Department, it should be taken into account when determining that Department’s future year allocations. Indeed, a case could be made for reviewing the allocations for the remaining years in this comprehensive spending review period to take into account the inability of Departments to spend their money.
Therefore, there are several sanctions that we need to consider, because we simply cannot continue to have a situation whereby £177 million that could have been spent in Northern Ireland in the last financial year was not spent.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Minister for his statement. What implications will the out-turn have on the Executive’s access to its stock of end-year flexibility? Have any negotiations taken place? If so, what was the outcome? The Minister also pointed out the important role of Statutory Committees, and he will be aware that those Committees are facing difficulties in receiving departmental submissions on monitoring rounds. What can be done to ensure that that situation does not continue?
As a member of the Committee for Education, I ask the Minister for Finance and Personnel to comment on an accusation that was made by the Minister of Education on 20 May during a debate on the extended schools funding programme, when she said that funding for that programme had been cut because DFP had not provided sufficient funds for it.

Peter Robinson: The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel raised three issues. First, with regard to end-year flexibility, I said that although a substantial part of my statement focuses on the provisional out-turns of each Department, one pressing issue for the Executive relates to equal pay for some grades in the Civil Service. A significant amount of money will be required to deal with the six years’ back pay to which those members of staff are entitled under the law.
We have already begun discussions with the Treasury about receiving an allocation from our underspend for that purpose. If successful, we would retain those funds, which would not be placed into the normal end-year flexibility stock. I emphasise that Members and, in particular, Ministers must be aware that, in the past, we were allowed to keep any underspend automatically, whereas we must now bid, negotiate and argue with the Treasury to receive that funding. It is conceivable that, because UK finances are tight, the Treasury could restrict future allocations if we do not use our allocations fully. Therefore, it is imperative that we improve financial management.
It is a Committee’s responsibility to ensure that any papers that it requires are delivered. Committees have a statutory right to receive papers and to summon people to appear before them, and they must be more robust in demanding that information. If Members want me to investigate specific cases, I would be pleased to do so.
Mr Storey mentioned education; I understand that a particular Department of Education programme required funding of approximately £4 million, and the Minister of Education decided — according to the headline in ‘The Irish News’ — to blame me for allocating insufficient funds. My answer to that is: just look at the Department of Education’s underspend of £50 million. With better financial management, the Department of Education could have conducted more than a dozen of those programmes.

John McCallister: Does the Minister accept that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was much closer to achieving targets in the two spending areas than most Departments and, in particular, his own Department? Furthermore, does he agree that, because revenue reflects a pattern of need whereas capital is a planned process, tackling capital underspend should be easier and, therefore, is a more disappointing result?

Peter Robinson: The figures show that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety had the highest underspend of £54·8 million, whereas my Department had an underspend of £6·1 million. However, that outlines the amount only, and the Member’s reliance on percentages illustrates the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s massive allocation. I recall a debate during which I was told that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety needed to receive an extra £300 million a year; it is difficult to swallow that point if the Department returns £55 million at the end of the year.
However, I commend the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for its record on capital allocation, which, as the Member said, is more difficult to control because legal planning and other issues can make it difficult to achieve the appropriate out-turn. Therefore, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety shows mixed results — a large underspend of its resource but a good capital expenditure out-turn.

Declan O'Loan: Given the demand and support for renewable energies, the environment and renewable energy fund’s underspend of 13·5% will cause disappoint­ment. However, the public will welcome the news that the Northern Ireland Assembly’s allocation was under­spent by £3·4 million, which is 7·6% of its budget.
I commend certain Departments for their very good results. I wonder whether it is easier for some than others. For example, one can envisage that DRD can spend rapidly on roads maintenance; we all accept the great need for that, and that is an area in which spending can get going quickly.
I accept the Minister’s comment that no spending is better than bad spending. Nevertheless, is there a model that Departments can replicate — namely, have in readiness meaningful schemes to use up budgeted funds — or can he say anything else about best practice that would prevent underspend and overspend?

Peter Robinson: Let me start where the Member finished. The expenditure should all be planned; it should not be about holding things back that can be pulled out suddenly at the last minute if there is a bit of money left over. Departments should have plans in place to spend the money that is allocated to them. They should not keep money in reserve that can be pulled out of the hat at the last minute.
The whole idea of a budgetary process is for Departments to look forward to what they want to accomplish during the following years and to utilise the funds that are necessary to achieve their targets. There should be plans for the expenditure of all that money. If a Department discovers that it is falling behind, as can happen in the case of capital funding and in resource funding, it must free up the money as early as possible in the financial year so that other Departments can use it — or, indeed, it can bid to use the money for another purpose. That is a matter of financial planning; it is not simply a case of having something in a back pocket that can be pulled out if there is a bit of money left over.
I share the Member’s disappointment at some of the high levels of underspend on renewable energy. I hope that mainstreaming those funds, rather than having them in the Executive priority funds, will help us to deliver better. Although some departmental underspend levels are bad, they are all better than the priority funds had been, which are somewhat detached from the Departments.
The Member also asked whether it was easier for some Departments to reach their targets than others. He is right; we all see roadworks staring to appear more frequently in the last few months of the year as DRD uses up its allocation. That is no bad thing, however, because that work must be done. In that case, I am not so worried about the upgrade and the curve, because it is not simply a case of taking on work that would not otherwise be done. That work should be done, although the money for it is being used up at the end of the year.
DRD’s record is exceptionally good, both in revenue and capital terms, and it has been able to plan its programmes well on both accounts. I hope that, to some extent, on the capital front, that is down to the assistance that was provided by a previous Minister, who introduced a preparation pool so that schemes would be prepared and ready to move as soon as funding was available for them.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Stephen Farry: First, in what may be his last appearance at the Dispatch Box as Minister of Finance and Personnel, I acknowledge, on behalf of the opposition, the Minister’s contribution in that role. Although we may not have agreed with every decision that was taken, I certainly respect his mastery of his brief.
Does the Minister see any correlation between the levels of current underspend and the Departments that are making bids under the monitoring rounds? Does he see the monitoring rounds as a means of enforcing a greater degree of discipline on Departments? How does Northern Ireland compare with the latest figures from our counterparts in Scotland and Wales, and the UK as a whole?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether I should refer to the Minister as “the Government Minister”.

Peter Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his kind remarks. I, at least, am one of those who recognises the importance of the role of an opposition. I know that many of the Member’s criticisms are merely synthetic because of the role that he has in opposition, and that he feels that he has to make those comments. [Laughter.]
The Member is right to draw attention not just to the issue of underspend at the end of the year, but to link it to the in-year monitoring rounds.
Let us not forget that money that is given up during the course of the year, as well as money that is left over at the end of the year, is money that is not going towards expenditure that was planned at the beginning of the year. If one adds the amount that was given up during the in-year monitoring rounds to the end-year flexibility figure, one ends up, effectively, with underspend of £400 million. The original budgets that were set out at the beginning of the financial year have been underspent by about 4% or 5%.
The figures are worse for capital spend, because only about 60% of the planned capital expenditure actually took place.

Iris Robinson: As has been said, table 1, attached to the printed copy of the Minister’s statement, indicates that the underspend in the Department of Health was £55 million. The Minister has already confirmed that that money has been lost to Northern Ireland’s public expenditure. How can that underspend be reconciled with the Health Minister’s claim, during the Budget process, that his Department was underfunded by £300 million? Bearing in mind that those who work in the mental-health sector — the Cinderella sector — are crying out for resources, particularly in the areas of suicide and self-harm and units and beds for children and adolescents, does the Minister agree that that is an abysmal showing on the part of the Health Minister?

Peter Robinson: There are two issues. First, let me make it clear that the funds are not lost to Northern Ireland plc, as things stand. We can seek the return of those funds, and they should be returned to Northern Ireland. It will be up to the Executive to determine how they distribute end-year flexibility when they get it.
Secondly, the Department of Health is a massive Department. It receives half of the overall Budget for Northern Ireland, and it must filter money to a series of organisations. Therefore, it faces massive financial-planning issues. However, many people are waiting for hip replacements or heart bypasses, for example, and they may have been told by the professionals that the money is not available for their treatment. If they hear today that there is a £55 million underspend in the Health Department, they will ask questions.
It is the job of the financial planners in the Health Department to ensure that they plan better to ensure that they use the money that is allocated to them. Simply asking for more money achieves nothing if they cannot use the money that has already been allocated.

Jennifer McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. All Members will share the concerns that the Minister has just outlined about departmental underspending and the effects that that has on essential front-line services. I was glad to hear his comments about Assembly Committees exercising a more proactive role in scrutinising their respective Depart­ments’ budgets, especially in the run-up to monitoring rounds, where they can have an impact. Will the Minister comment on any direct effect on front-line services to the public that resulted from underspending in the Department of Finance and Personnel?

Peter Robinson: By asking PEDU to examine one particular area of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s responsibility, I have indicated an area in which I think that there can be improvements. It is probably unnecessary for me to say more than that.
As the Member will know, she and I could identify areas in which improvements could be made in any Department. If Departments are handing back money at the end of a financial year, we must ask why that money was not used to improve the services that we give to the community. These are very large sums. I recognise the difficulties that accounting officers and others face in ensuring that the plans that are set out at the beginning of the year — or, in some cases, three years in advance — are implemented.
If our plans cannot be fulfilled, we must do better to ensure that funds are reallocated to where they will be of use.
I accept the Member’s point about the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The target for the general level of underspend is about right — Departments should aim for an underspend in the region of 1%. Other Governments have achieved such levels of underspend; the Scottish Government, for example, reached a 0·1% underspend. I would be nervous about such a tight position, but the example shows that underspend targets can be achieved, with proper planning. We must raise our game to ensure that the public get a return for the money that they hand over in payment of their rates bill.

Peter Weir: The Finance Minister indicated that underspend figures are set against February’s final-plan position. Will he advise how Departments have performed against what they were allocated at the start of the year?

Peter Robinson: I will be happy to provide the Member with a table showing detailed figures for each Department. As I indicated to Dr Farry — Mr Weir’s fellow Member for North Down — overall, Departments fulfilled only 60% of their intended capital expenditure, and about 95% of their resource or revenue expenditure. If we have had to reallocate funds within departmental in-year monitoring rounds, the underspend figure is really 5%, rather than 2%.

David McClarty: In light of the Minister’s response to Mr McCallister’s question, does he not accept that it is much more difficult to forecast revenue spend? For example, DEL’s expenditure on programmes is dependent on the decisions of individuals.
The Minister rightly draws attention to his Department’s 3·1% underspend — the fourth highest of all the Departments. The Minister conceded that his Department has some way to go before it can set an example that others should follow. Will the Minister provide the House with some detail on how — and when — his Department aims to achieve the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s target of 1% underspend?

Peter Robinson: I am not sure whether I have misinterpreted Mr McCallister or whether the Member misspoke during his initial remarks. It is more difficult to get close to zero underspend for capital than for revenue. Capital expenditure is very difficult to predict because it is subject to so many variables. Capital schemes are innovative by nature and, therefore, it is more difficult to develop a curve showing the trajectory of capital expenditure. Capital spend is often subject to the Planning Service, and the process is not always as prompt as we would like. Capital expenditure can also be subject to legal, roads and tendering issues. For example, tenders are often not within what we are prepared to pay, and there has to be a re-tender.
Lots of things can go wrong in capital spend; revenue spend is much more predictable. Therefore, we should be able to get closer to our underspend target for revenue expenditure. That is not simply my general belief — statistics prove that to be the case. Underspend figures for past years show that capital underspend is significantly higher than revenue underspend.
The Member’s second question referred directly to the Department of Finance and Personnel. The trajectory under direct rule indicated a worsening situation in the Department of Finance and Personnel. The level of underpsend increased from 7·1% in 2004-05, to 9·1% in 2005-06, to 10·7% in 2006-07. The trajectory is going in the other direction and has been reduced to 3·1%.
With hard work, the position has been turned round. Far from being critical of my officials, I recognise that they have reversed the trend in my Department and been able to reduce the underspend.
Those figures relate only to current expenditure. With respect to the capital budget, the underspend in 2004-05 was 88·3%; in the following year, it was 73·4%; the year after that, it was 18·3%; and now I have reduced it to 4·6%. Therefore, I take the applause from the Ulster Unionist Benches for transforming the situation in the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I agree with the other Members who have spoken. The public will not care about the reasons for the £177 million underspend, come the back of numerous debates in the Assembly.
In answer to a previous question, the Minister said that the money would not be lost to the Executive with the passing of time. Can he explain that to us? I believe that the money will be lost to Departments, for it will be transferred to the central fund.
Does the Minister believe that senior civil servants in all Departments take their talents and experience with them when they move from one Department to another? The permanent secretary of the Department of Health previously worked for the Department of Finance and Personnel. Where did that all go wrong?

Peter Robinson: We could have a long debate about that last point.
The Member is absolutely correct that as soon as there is an underspend in any Department, the money is lost to it. The £55 million underspent in the Department of Health is lost to that Department. It will stay in the Treasury. The Executive will have to bid for the return of all the money underspent in this financial year from the Treasury. If we cannot persuade the Treasury to release that money to settle the equal pay issue, I suspect that the Treasury will want to spread the return of the money over a number of years. As the money comes back to Northern Ireland, the Executive can allocate it. The Executive will receive bids from the Department of Health and from other Departments. If a Department has an underspend, there is no guarantee that it will get that money back. It will have to bid for it, as will every other Department.

Simon Hamilton: After encouraging indications earlier in the year, and in the monitoring rounds, of improved financial management in Departments, there has been a deeply disappointing out-turn from some Depart­ments. That makes a compelling case for application of some of the sanctions described in the Minister’s statement. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will consider making senior civil servants ineligible for bonuses if their Departments continue to underspend so badly?

Peter Robinson: I hinted earlier that the award of a bonus must reflect good value given by an individual in his public service. If ensuring that the public service fulfils the plans laid by the Executive is a key objective, then it must be a factor in how well that person has performed. The Member’s suggestion that it should be the only factor and the whole bonus should depend on it is draconian, but it is certainly one factor and, therefore, the bonus should reflect to some extent the ability of the accounting officer to meet the targets that have been set.

Adrian McQuillan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Has the impact of the Northern Ireland Civil Service equal pay policy been factored into the underspend figures?

Peter Robinson: It has not. The figures that I have outlined are the provisional out-turns for the Departments based upon the allocations made to them. The underspend of £177 million leaves us with two arguments that might be deployed against the Treasury. The first is that direct rule left us with the problem of equal pay, and therefore, the United Kingdom Government should stump up to remedy that. Secondly, if they are not prepared to do that then we should be able to use some of the funds that were not spent to deal with the costs that we will incur in back payments to meet equal pay requirements.

Basil McCrea: There appears to be a significant difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and Personnel and others about whether capital expenditure or revenue is the most difficult to forecast. I ask the Minister to demonstrate his command of the detail and explain how in the Department for Employment and Learning — which he mentioned — more than two-thirds of the original £733 million produced an underspend of less than three-quarters of one per cent. That position is highly acceptable. Does he agree that the underspend occurred in demand-led areas, which are difficult to forecast?
Does he also accept that planned overspend was reduced to try and meet the budget? Does he consider that that reduction had an adverse effect on the profile, which, I see from the chart, peaks at the end of the financial year? Does he think that the party-political-bickering that we see, in which one Department plays off another, is helpful as regards collective responsibility? Will he explain to the people of Northern Ireland why the Minister of Education appears to have a £50 million underspend but cannot find money for extended schools? That inconsistency can be applied to any Department. Why is that being allowed to happen under our financial regulations?

Peter Robinson: Let me settle the issue, because it is not merely about the Member’s opinion or mine. There is statistical evidence, and the statistics are fairly stubborn. The Member can put whatever excuses he wants into the ether, but the figures show the reality. There are significantly higher amounts of underspend in capital expenditure than there are in resource expenditure.

Basil McCrea: Why is that?

Peter Robinson: I will inform the Member of the reasons again, because I suspect that he needs to be told three times before he understands. First, it is more difficult to predict capital expenditure because the projects involved are often novel, one-off experiences. Departments are unable, therefore, to benefit from a learning curve or by drawing on the knowledge of previous capital expenditure projects. Secondly, capital expenditure relies on planning, tendering, legal issues and a Department’s ability to get workmen on and off site in a given time.
In the 2007-08 financial year, there was an underspend of 2·1% in resource expenditure and 6·3% in capital expenditure. That should tell the Member something — it should tell him that since the underspend of capital expenditure is greater, it is more difficult for Departments to spend their full capital expenditure allocation.
I do not look at out-turns as being a case of comparing one Department with another, because I acknowledge what the Member for North Antrim Mr O’Loan said. Some Departments find it easier than others to use up money at the end of the year, and the Department for Regional Development is such a Department. Contrary to being party political, I commended the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on its capital expenditure. It was able to return a low level of underspend.
It is not right for Basil McCrea to point the finger at the Minister of Education and accuse her of being a terrible Minister because £4 million could not be found for a project although she had an underspend of £50 million, while saying that his Minister had an underspend of £55 million, which is all right. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please allow the Minister to respond.

Peter Robinson: I have been fair in distributing criticism where it is due, and that criticism must be directed at departmental financial planners. It is not the Minister of Education or the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety who carry out departmental financial planning — they crack the whip and ask what the out-turn figures will be, and whether the Department will meet its requirements. We have to be even-handed. No Department, with the exception of DRD, has done well in its current expenditure underspend — I did not notice that the Minister for Regional Development had just arrived. [Laughter.]
The Department for Regional Development was the only Department that managed to get its spending within the target figures that were set by the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Alastair Ross: Several Members mentioned the debate on extended schools that took place in the House. During that debate, the Minister of Education indicated that, on numerous occasions, she had written to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to request additional funding. Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel state whether he responded to those requests?

Peter Robinson: I believe that, on four occasions, I responded to requests that were made during the Executive-level discussions — I was going to call them negotiations — that take place between Ministers. I met the Minister of Education on many occasions, and she indicated the needs of, and her aspirations for, the Department of Education. The money that was allocated to that Department was increased as a result of each of our discussions. Indeed, the Minister can point out that her Department had one of the highest levels of increase in its budget. It seems that the Department of Education has more money than it can use and will therefore have to reduce its underspend in the next financial year or it will be one of the Departments whose future spending patterns will have to be reviewed.

John O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister of Finance and Personnel has made much of his call for efficiency, for funds to be directed towards front-line services, and for an end to bureaucracy in our system. I support that fully, as does my party. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that if we are to curb the underspend in the Department of Education, we must achieve all the aforementioned goals? Does he also agree that one way of doing that is to establish the education and skills authority, as proposed by the Minister of Education?
Furthermore, does the Minister agree that if that authority were introduced, there would be a more-refined, leaner, keener machine that would ensure that money is spent? That would also allow for capital-build programmes to progress. I am aware of one of capital-build programme with an allocated budget of £21 million that has been delayed because of the bureaucratic system within which we operate. Therefore, does the Minister of Finance and Personnel agree that we must establish the education and skills authority and start making changes in education?

Peter Robinson: I do not intend to get too involved in the policy issue, but I remind the Member that, although there are always ways of doing things cheaply, we must do things to the highest level in order to get the best return. For instance, if there were three bodies rather than one education and skills authority, it could be argued that that would allow a closer on-the-ground scrutiny of what was going on, resulting in savings being made. However, the financial outcome of such an undertaking is the kind of issue that we can leave the economists and others to argue about.
We must recognise that every Department provides services, that those services must be provided in a way that offers the best value for money and that, often, that way is not the cheapest option. We must get the best value for money and cut out waste. It rattles me significantly that, at the end of a financial year, we find ourselves with £177 million unspent, while members of the public want improved services and have been denied the services that they desperately want and need. That is not a satisfactory situation, but it should not provoke an argument among Members, because the only issue that we should be concerned with is how to get a better return at the end of the next financial year.
Rather than worrying about how much has been spent by any one Department, we should be concerned about ensuring that the underspend is reduced and that the ratepayers and taxpayers of Northern Ireland get the best value for money.

Ministerial Statement

North/South Ministerial Council Transport Sectoral Meeting

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council transport sectoral meeting.

Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following report about the fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NMSC) in the transport sectoral format, which was held at the Tí Chulainn conference centre in Mullaghbane, County Armagh on Wednesday 21 May 2008.
The Executive were represented by Arlene Foster MLA and I, and the Irish Government were represented by Noel Dempsey TD.
The Environment Minister, Arlene Foster, has approved the report, and I make it on her behalf.
The Council noted and welcomed the progress that had been made since the last meeting in December 2007 and the chance to meet to discuss opportunities for cross-border co-operation on strategic transport planning and road safety.
The Council discussed the positions of the A5 north-west gateway to Aughnacloy and A8 Belfast to Larne road projects, and noted the progress that has been made. I advised the Council that the A5 project is on target to achieve its first significant milestone — preliminary route corridor assessment — by late 2008. It is anticipated that the preferred route will be selected by mid-2009, and the draft statutory Orders published by late 2010. Beyond that, it is anticipated that a public inquiry will be necessary. Subject to satisfactory progress through the statutory procedures, construction could commence by 2012 and be completed by 2015. The Council also noted that several key milestones have been agreed, which can be aligned with the timing of payments from the Irish Government.
On the A8 project, I advised the Council that development work is in progress on the proposal to provide 14 km of dual carriageway between Belfast and Larne. I confirmed that that project is also on target to achieve the first significant milestone of preliminary route corridor assessment later this year. Overall delivery is anticipated on a similar timescale to the A5 project.
The Council noted and welcomed the continuing progress on the Irish Government’s proposals to replace the two cross-border bridges at Annaghroe and Knocknaginny on the Tyrone/Monaghan border. Monaghan County Council has appointed consultants to develop the design, and information evenings for the public were held in County Tyrone and County Monaghan in March. The issue of full community consultation on the proposals before the bridges open was raised by the Environment Minister and discussed. A further opportunity for public consultation will arise when the bridge design proposals are submitted for planning approval. The Council welcomed that progress and commended the excellent cross-border co-operation to date at official level.
The Council noted that Louth County Council has appointed consultants who have begun a technical study on the construction of a bridge at Narrow Water — public consultation took place recently in Louth and Warrenpoint. The technical study, environmental impact statement and preliminary design work will be completed by the end of 2008.
I reminded the Council that Roads Service has employed consultants who have undertaken a feasibility study for a Newry southern relief road, which would link the A2 Warrenpoint Road to the A1 just south of Newry. That study is also due to be completed later this year, and further reports on both projects will be presented to future NSMC transport sectoral meetings. The Council welcomed the close co-operation between officials on those projects, which it looked forward to continuing as the work on both studies progresses.
The Council reviewed the progress since the last meeting on proposals for improving the Belfast to Dublin rail service. It noted that the two railway companies have considered options for redeploying additional existing rolling stock on the Belfast to Dublin line, which could improve the frequency of the service. Both railway companies are finalising proposals in the form of a costed business case, which will be presented prior to the next NSMC meeting in transport sectoral format.
The Council welcomed the commitment from the Department for Regional Development to improve the railway line from Belfast to Derry. Ministers noted that the Department for Regional Development has agreed to undertake a study to consider the long-term social, physical and economic redevelopment of the railway throughout the north-west. Once the study is complete, its findings will be brought to a meeting of the NSMC in transport sectoral format, at which stage consideration will be given to a study of improved public-transport links with Donegal.
The Council noted that City of Derry Airport had begun work on the runway safety improvement scheme, which is supported by £14 million of funding from the two Governments. Already, over £3 million of grants has been paid to Derry City Council. As a precondition of the grant scheme, Derry City Council is required to commit to a programme of reform for the governance of the airport. The Council noted that a commitment had been given to incorporate the airport into a company wholly owned by the local authority, followed, within an 18-month period, by the sale of the company, either outright or with Derry City Council retaining control of the airport land through a long-term lease. The Council noted that, in addition to the grant aid scheme, Derry City Council has funded the construction of a new taxiway and extended the aircraft parking apron.
The Council noted the progress that is being made in reducing road deaths by the authorities on both sides of the border. It welcomed the continuing co-operation between the authorities on advertising, publicity and road safety in border areas and noted the potential for further liaison on key road-safety issues, such as drink-driving limits, road-safety strategies and cross-border enforcement. Ministers also requested an intensification in the work on a bilateral agreement on the EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications to ensure that it is brought into effect by late 2008 or early 2009.
The Council noted that preparations are under way for a cross-border rural community transport project, which is expected to commence before the end of 2008. That project will involve community transport groups in the Fermanagh and Cavan border region. A report on the evaluation of the pilot scheme will be presented to a future NSMC meeting in transport sectoral format.
The Council discussed sustainable transport, and noted that the Department of Transport has launched a paper entitled ‘2020 Vision — Sustainable Travel and Transport’ for public consultation. The Council also noted that a number of initiatives on sustainable transport are being progressed by the Department for Regional Development.
The Council noted that officials met to share information and experience and to explore measures to promote sustainable transport. It looked forward to receiving specific cross-border pilot projects on sustainable transport for consideration at future NSMC meetings in transport sectoral format.
The Council noted the ongoing work and studies being undertaken on rapid transit in Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. It welcomed the ongoing discussions among officials about sharing information and co-operation on that issue.
Ministers welcomed the presentation from the Confederation of British Industry/Irish Business and Employers Confederation Joint Business Council on the findings of the report ‘Freight Transport Report for the Island of Ireland’. Ministers agreed that officials should consider the recommendations of the study that are relevant to the NSMC transport area and should report to a future meeting.
The Council agreed to meet again in October or November 2008. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Fred Cobain: I thank the Minister for his statement.
Is the real problem with the Belfast to Dublin rail service not related to the trackbed, rather than rolling stock? Unless work to the trackbed is conducted, there is little point in spending money on faster trains, which will not be able to run at full speed. That has been a problem with the Belfast to Derry/Londonderry line. I am sure that, like us, the Minister does not want to see such problems repeated on the Belfast to Dublin line.

Conor Murphy: The Chairman is correct to say that we need to improve the service and the system of rail network across the North and across the island generally. Of course we want to improve the Belfast to Dublin railway line. That not only involves investment in the rolling stock, but investment in the track itself. There are a number of problems with the track between Belfast and Dublin that cause the service to be slower than we would like.
The general objectives are to provide more a frequent, faster and more comfortable service. In doing so, we hope to improve the usage of the service. One study that we considered recently estimated that, within 30 years, 40% of the population of Ireland will live on the eastern corridor between Belfast and Dublin. Such a statistic could be used to argue for investment in the rail network along that corridor, both locally and on the intercity network.
Iarnród Éireann and NIR (Northern Ireland Railways) are preparing a business case to present to a NSMC meeting that will outline a range of options and associated costings about how to improve across a range of areas, including frequency, speed and comfort. We have asked for that report to be delivered to us in advance of the next NSMC meeting, which will enable us to consider and discuss the options, rather than simply receive them at that meeting. I look forward to receiving that, and to the continued support for increased investment in rail from the Committee for Regional Development and the Assembly generally.

Jim Wells: Does the Minister recall that, just before he took high office, he, I and all the Assembly Members for South Down and Newry and Armagh signed a document in Newry stating that a southern relief road was essential to relieve congestion in that city? If so, does he believe that that is still the case?
The Minister stated that negotiations are ongoing for a bridge at Narrow Water, near Warrenpoint. Will he offer an assurance that, should that project proceed, it will in no way prejudice the prospect of having a southern relief road that is required for South Down and Newry and Armagh? Such a road will relieve the chronic congestion that is currently strangling Newry.

Conor Murphy: I have no difficulty in standing over what I signed up to. I believe that there is an urgent need for a connection between the port of Warrenpoint and the M1 motorway between Belfast and Dublin. Such a connection is essential for the port and its continued expansion, and for the southern part of Newry into South Down to relieve traffic congestion.
Despite what the Member might like, I will not fall into the trap of saying that those projects are in competition with each other. Even before I assumed what he referred to as “high office”, I always avoided the notion that the Narrow Water bridge project was competing with the southern relief road project.
Louth County Council is currently conducting a study in relation to the Narrow Water bridge project, and the Roads Service is conducting one in relation to the southern relief road. Officials from both of those projects are sharing information with one another, and both studies are expected to be completed by the end of this year. They will then be put before the next NSMC meeting, and we will see where that takes us. I am committed to trying to reduce the traffic congestion on the southern side of Newry. I am also committed to improving the access to Warrenpoint port because that is an essential economic driver for that region. I have also expressed my support for the idea of a bridge linking the communities in County Louth and County Down. We will consider what the two studies produce, and we will see where that takes us.

Willie Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made in relation to sustainable transport on an all-island basis? Will he also outline what initiatives are being progressed by the Department regarding sustainable transport?
With your indulgence, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I also ask the Minister whether the issue of public transport using biofuels was discussed at the NSMC meeting.

Conor Murphy: I will answer the Member’s final question first — it was not. However, that is not to say that that issue could not feature on the agenda of a future NSMC meeting.
Sustainable transport is something that is very important to us. I strongly feel that there is an all-Ireland dimension to travel, and I support the need to deepen cross-border co-operation to address sustainability issues and meet the challenges that lie ahead.
At a time when the amount of traffic on roads continues to increase, we need to work together and contribute to CO2 reductions by seeking opportunities to address congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly travel. Officials, North and South, have met to share information and experience, and to explore measures to promote sustainable transport. I am keen that behavioural-change projects that are already in place in the North — such as the promotion of walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing and park-and-ride facilities — could assist the South in the development of its sustainable travel and transport action plan.
The meeting noted plans to jointly undertake pilot demonstration projects and studies that will lead to more sustainable travel on both sides of the border. At a future meeting, we look forward to hearing the results of how those projects could be expanded further for the mutual benefit of both North and South.

P J Bradley: I welcome the Minister’s statement this morning. I also welcome the report on the ongoing efforts to improve the Dublin to Belfast rail link. Both Governments must continue the work to upgrade that very important track, because, until we receive a fully recognised Euro rail link, that is a target that both Governments should aim for.
I imagine that the Minister expects me to raise a question about Narrow Water, so I will not disappoint him. I welcome the fact that the project was profiled at the meeting on 21 May 2008. The report gives me encouragement, and I welcome the response that the Minister gave to Mr Wells.
At the last meeting that I had with officials in the Republic, I was given nine indicative dates. As the Minister mentioned, two of those have already passed. However, the dates that I was given included 28 February 2010, which is the date for the tendering process; and August 2011, which is the date for the completion of the work. Will the Minister assure me — and others who will benefit greatly from the provision of the bridge — that he will work to achieve those stages by those dates, or even advance them if possible?

Conor Murphy: Due to his keen interest in that project, the Member will be aware that the study was undertaken by Louth County Council; it was not done by the Department for Regional Development. The dates that he mentioned were shared with him by those who conducted the study on behalf of Louth County Council.
I have read further press announcements in relation to that project. I often think that Narrow Water bridge would have been built a long time ago if it were built on press releases. Nonetheless, we are where we are with that project. In one of the Member’s press releases, I also note that he said that DRD was not doing enough to assist that project. DRD has not been asked to do anything by the people conducting the study. I asked Roads Service officials to share information with the people conducting the study on behalf of Louth County Council.
My answer remains the same as it was to Mr Wells; let the studies be completed and then we will see what propositions are put to us. We will certainly respond as positively as we possibly can.

Sean Neeson: I am delighted that the issue of the A8 Larne to Belfast road was discussed at the meeting, and the fact that public consultations are ongoing currently. Will the Minister indicate what the estimated timescale is for the completion of that project?

Conor Murphy: As I said in my statement, the first milestone will be to identify the route corridor, which will happen shortly. As the Member knows, that will go out for consultation, and we will then have to identify the preferred route option. Unfortunately, those processes take time, because a proper assessment of, and consultation on, all the routes is required. Whatever route is suggested, as with any significant road project, a public inquiry will be inevitable, because people will object to some aspect, be it their access to the road or the impact that that will have on people’s property or land; that will take time. However, the process is expected to follow the same timescale as the A5 Derry to Aughnacloy route, with commencement by 2012 and completion by 2015.

Stephen Moutray: Given that journey times on the Belfast to Dublin rail link are often more than two and a half hours and, indeed, in the past, have taken as long as five hours, what analysis has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the Minister’s efforts to improve the efficiency of the service?

Conor Murphy: We strive constantly to improve efficiency. However, bad experiences are heard more often than good, normal, run-of-the-mill experiences. Several parts of the line have been identified that slow down the journey, one of which is between Lurgan and Lisburn. Access into Connolly station on the Dublin side is an issue because of congestion with the local intercity service. Several issues have been identified.
At the previous NSMC meeting, we had a presentation from Iarnród Éireann and Northern Ireland Railways. We had hoped that the business case that we had requested would be presented at the Mullaghbawn meeting, but that did not happen because it required more work. However, we have asked for the business case to be presented to us in advance of the next NSMC meeting so that some analysis can be conducted, and we can respond at that meeting. We want to improve the service — frequency, speed and comfort — and thereby increase the number of passengers who use the service. It is hoped that the business case will identify a range of options and the attendant costings, and we will then have to find the resources. However, the business case will identify what must be done, and at what level, to improve the service. The improvement of the service is the constant goal of the Department and NIR.

Mickey Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the fact that there will be a report on the community-based rural transport pilot scheme in the Fermanagh/Cavan area, have there been any discussions to extend that scheme, if successful, into other border areas?

Conor Murphy: The fact that community-based rural transport is considered a pilot scheme suggests that we anticipate and hope that it will be successful.
A range of issues has been identified about difficulties in the provision of cross-border rural transport. The pilot scheme is focusing on identifying the potential demands and barriers, which include logistic, legislative and procedural issues, for the provision of cross-border rural transport. We hope that the operation of the scheme between Fermanagh and Cavan will identify the obstacles.
We are reasonably sure of some of the obstacles, but pilot schemes are effective in examining how schemes work and what inhibits their full and proper working. We intend to address whatever difficulties are thrown up as a result of the pilot scheme and to use that experience to introduce other schemes that will benefit from learning about the obstacles that were faced and overcome in the pilot scheme. The intention is to use that experience to roll out schemes in other cross-border areas.

George Robinson: In his statement, the Minister referred to the bridges on the Tyrone/Monagahan border. Although they are not in my constituency, will the Minister assure the Assembly that full public consultation will be undertaken at every stage of the process, particularly on the design of the bridges at Annaghroe and Knocknaginney?

Conor Murphy: Yes, the bridges were discussed at the meeting, and the Minister of the Environment raised the specific concerns of the local community on the re-opening of the roads. Undoubtedly, when roads have been closed for a lengthy period, their re-opening will create some disturbance in that area. Minister Foster asked Minister Dempsey to talk to Monaghan County Council to ensure that whatever further consultation the communities in that border area deem necessary will be fully undertaken.
A quantity of information has been distributed, but some people felt that they did not have a full opportunity to examine, and express their views on, the proposals. However, Minister Dempsey assured us that Monaghan County Council will ensure full consultation with local people at each stage of the process and, if people want additional information, the council will accommodate them.

John McCallister: This morning, I am reassured that, should the projects for a bridge at Narrow Water and a southern relief road end up competing on budgetary terms, at least the Minister has signed up to the latter and has pledged to honour that commitment.
The Minister accepts that there has been widespread local opposition, on both sides of the border, to the bridges linking Tyrone and Monaghan. Will he do everything in his power to address the issues that have been raised on each side of the border? Will he agree to review whether the project should even proceed?

Conor Murphy: The Southern Government would fund the project for a bridge at Narrow Water, and it would be up to the Assembly to fund the southern relief road project, if it were to go ahead. The only chance of the projects competing for a budgetary allocation would be in a united Ireland, in which everyone would share the same Budget. I look forward to the day when such projects compete for funding from the same pool of money.
The bridges were discussed at the meeting, and it was accepted that the re-opening of roads after a lengthy closure would cause some disruption and alter the pattern of people’s lives that has been established over the past 30 years, or for however long the bridges have been closed. The Minister of the Environment raised the issue, and it was acknowledged that people — certainly on the Northern side — want more consultation. They want to examine the proposals more fully and be given an opportunity to comment on them. The Southern representatives undertook to speak to Monaghan County Council about facilitating that.

Pat Ramsey: I too welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly on road safety. Members are constantly concerned about the continued carnage on the roads, such as occurred in Donegal, only last weekend. A move to a metric system would be of particular benefit to tourists travelling in the border regions. Does the Minister foresee a time of greater harmonisation of road signage?
The Minister has committed to improving the Derry to Belfast railway line. An independent study by the Northern Corridor Railways Group clearly demonstrates that the sustainability of the line is crucial to the long-term economic, social and environmental stability of the area. When will the Minister introduce definitive proposals on the future of the line from Derry to Belfast?
The Minister referred to a study on a rail link in the north-west. Is that time-bound? Will he use the proposals by the Northern Corridor Railways Group, in conjunction with the Irish Government’s study on Donegal, as a template for going forward?

Conor Murphy: The Northern Corridors Railways Group produced its study. It then asked my Department to initiate a study into the social and economic benefits of developing the railway line between Belfast and Derry, and links to the north-west in general. We have agreed to do that, and we will undertake that study as soon as is possible. The Member will be aware that significant investment is already being made between Coleraine and Derry. More work is about to begin, and work has been proposed for the coming years. I identified, and bid for, a £64 million improvement to the track between Coleraine and Derry. That all augurs well for the future of that line.
The study will undoubtedly help, because, as was the case with the Belfast to Dublin line, and our railways in general, we must increasingly make stronger arguments for investment in rail infrastructure, as the population, congestion and pressure on our roads grows. We must return to a system of investing more in our railways. I look forward to the completion of the study to which we have committed. We have also committed to bringing that study to the NSMC, and to using it to kick-start and influence a study into public transport in Donegal that examines how both systems might link up. We are committed to doing that at future NSMC meetings.
The Member asked about road signage. An examination of each and every area in which road safety can be improved will take place. The objective is to try to reduce the number of deaths on our roads. Particular problems exist in border areas, but whether accidents occur because of road signs or because of driver behaviour, which, unfortunately, most deaths on the road are as a result of, is another matter.
The Minister of the Environment takes lead responsibility for developing the road safety policy. My Department will contribute to that policy, and we will happily consider improved signage if it were identified as something that would help.

Cathal Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that there has been substantial progress on North to South road infrastructure, in particular the M1 from Dublin to Belfast and the M2 from Belfast to Derry?
Given its congestion and traffic problems, did any discussion take place on the third main arterial route, which, in part, connects Castleblayney, Keady and Armagh? Given that 70% of road fatalities happen on rural roads, and in the border counties, will the Minister update us on any relevant new measures to reduce that statistic? Go raibh maith agat.

Conor Murphy: Other Members may dispute whether the road through Keady is the third main route. Quite a few people have suggested that the Sligo to Belfast route — the N4 — is one of the main routes, North and South.
To answer the Member’s question directly, the matter was not discussed. However, roads projects that cross the border are issues that feature on NSMC agendas. If a particular issue arises, or a case is made for improving that road, I am sure that it will appear on our agenda at some stage.
A range of road safety issues was discussed, one of which concerned mutual recognition. There was a sense that the urgency in dealing with mutual recognition of disqualifications, and in sharing information across the border, should be stepped up. Of course, a range of measures to deal with road safety is already in place. At the previous NSMC meeting, we saw a presentation of the Southern Government’s road safety policy. I know that the Minister of the Environment is intending to review the road safety policy here, and to make known her findings in 2010. That, of course, does not prevent the introduction of interim road safety measures, such as advertising, road improvements, education measures, detection, disqualification, and harsher penalties for people who are caught speeding or driving irresponsibly.
All those measures are being undertaken as it is, but a review of the road safety strategy will also take place. A strategy is currently being introduced in the South. That will provide opportunities, particularly in border areas, where it is recognised that there is a particular problem. Statistics show that there is dispropor­tionate number of accidents and deaths compared with some of the other counties across the island.
Sharing information on both strategies will help Ministers to devise further strategies on top of those that already work in order to reduce the carnage further. Bearing in mind that serious accidents have occurred during the past few weeks, with bank holidays in the North and South — which, tragically, always seems to be the case — generally speaking, statistics for the time of year are down, both North and South, compared with previous years. We hope that that remains the case and that those figures can be driven down further.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement. He referred to improvements that have been made to the southern relief road. As regards tourist traffic, 100,000 extra tourists have come to Northern Ireland in the past year, and it is quite clear that a large number of them are from the Republic of Ireland. Are steps being taken, not only to improve the southern relief road at Warrenpoint, but to provide a bypass or similar road improvements at Ballynahinch and, indeed, at Downpatrick, which will, ultimately, open the door towards Strangford? That is my idea. I am sure that the Minister would be disappointed if I were not to mention Strangford at some stage.
My other question relates to the bilateral agreement on driving disqualifications. Has any progress been made between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on the issue of disqualified drivers? Many in the Chamber believe that it is important that, when someone is disqualified from driving in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland, the same rule applies in the other jurisdiction. I want confirmation on whether progress is ongoing on that issue.

Conor Murphy: The Ballynahinch bypass is identified in Roads Service’s forward planning schedule. I am not sure about a bypass for Downpatrick. I met some of Downpatrick’s councillors to discuss the traffic through the town and improvements that could be made, and we identified some options by which the flow of traffic through Downpatrick could be assisted.
Of course, increased tourism brings increased traffic. On one hand, increased tourism is a welcome development. However, it brings associated problems. I am sure that many tourists who come to the North will want to visit Strangford Lough and to see the beauty of that area. So, a bypass for Ballynahinch has been identified. The Department will continue to work to improve road networks away from major, key roads, on which there is already a high degree of focus.
As regards the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications, there was, as I have said, a sense during the discussion that the matter is largely between the Minister of the Environment and Minister Dempsey. Certainly, there was a sense that both Ministers wanted some urgency to be injected into discussion on the issue and that they felt that progress has not been made as quickly as, perhaps, it could be. The matter has been the subject of constraints that are associated with the normal processes of policy development and implementation, including public consultation in both jurisdictions. I understand that several technical and legal difficulties have also been encountered. Mutual recognition of penalty points has also proven to be a complex and difficult issue. It is expected to be some time yet before all the obstacles to implementation can be overcome.
A trilateral meeting on mutual recognition between the Environment Minister and her counterparts in London and Dublin is scheduled to take place in Belfast in June. Certainly, the sense that I got from the meeting was that both Minister Foster and Minister Dempsey wanted some urgency to be injected into the issue. Technical and legal difficulties always occur with cross-border issues. However, my sense of the discussion is that those difficulties are not insurmountable. Ministers want to move ahead and close that loophole as early as possible. A trilateral discussion is scheduled to take place in Belfast later in the month to try to make progress on the issue. London’s input is a key element in that discussion.

Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and the answers that he has already given. I note that the meeting took place in Tí Chulainn. I hope that the Minister showed a good example to the Environment Minister by, at least, cycling, if not walking, to Tí Chulainn on that particular day.

Arlene Foster: Does the Member suggest that I should have walked to Tí Chulainn from Fermanagh? [Laughter.]

Raymond McCartney: No, I meant that the Minister for Regional Development should have shown the Environment Minister such a good example.
I welcome the study that has been carried out on the redevelopment of railways in the north-west. What discussion on rapid transit has the Minister had with his counterpart in the South? What discussions have taken place between officials in both Departments?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, did you cycle?

Conor Murphy: I have to confess, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that I did not. Anyone who knows Sturgan Brae, which comes out of Camlough, heading towards Crossmaglen, will understand that it would require more than my legs to get up it on a bicycle.
I take on board the Member’s point about sustainable transport. Dublin has experienced the Luas rapid transit system, and several other cities across the South, including Waterford, Limerick and Galway, are considering rapid transit propositions. We were able to share with, and hand over to, Minister Dempsey the outcome of the feasibility study that was carried out on Belfast. We provided the highlights of that study, which was welcome to his Department, given that those other cities are being considered.
On 15 May 2008, my officials made a presentation on the findings and recommendations of our feasibility report to colleagues in Dublin, and they agreed to continue the discussions as the project progresses. I understand that the Southern Government are considering the feasibility of bus-based rapid transport systems for Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford.

Dominic Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Fáiltím roimh ráiteas an Aire, agus gabhaim buíochas leis as. Is maith liom go raibh an cruinniú ar siúl i dTí Chulainn, nó tá mé féin ar dhuine dá bhunaitheoirí. Is maith go bhfuil an Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas ag baint úsáide as áiseanna pobail. Ba mhaith liom fosta tagairt áirithe a dhéanamh don bhóthar faoisimh ó dheas ó Iúr Cinn Trá, nó beidh ról tábhachtach ag an bhóthar sin ag fuascailt fadhbanna tráchta an Iúir.
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome it. I welcome the fact that the meeting was held in Tí Chulainn, as I am one of the founders of that centre. I am glad that the NSMC is making use of community facilities.
The southern relief road in Newry will have an important role in solving the traffic chaos in Newry. The Minister said that further reports on the feasibility of the southern relief road will be presented to the NSMC later this year. Will he ensure that the study, in addition to examining the benefit to Newry city and south Down, will consider the potential benefit to both jurisdictions in that the road will facilitate better links between Warrenpoint port and Dublin port? Will he ensure that the study considers the fact that Warrenpoint handles a considerable volume of port traffic that Dublin port cannot presently handle? Go raibh maith agat.

Conor Murphy: I was delighted to host the meeting in Tí Chulainn, and it is beneficial that, where possible, Government business, particularly North/South meetings, makes use of community facilities, which rely on that business more than some of the other venues that have been used. It is a good venue, and all who came to it got a real sense of the beauty of the south Armagh area and were made welcome, which was also beneficial.
I notice that the Member’s namesake and colleague Mr P J Bradley has left the Chamber. It is similar to a Punch-and-Judy act; one Member supports the southern relief road and the other tries to harangue me over the southern relief road and supports the construction of a bridge at Narrow Water. Nonetheless, all politics is local, and even parties are able to divide along local lines on such projects.
The idea of a southern relief road is important not only for the port of Warrenpoint and for the southern side of Newry but for the connection onto the A1/M1 north, which will make a connection towards Dublin and the other ports. Warrenpoint has a key role, and we have one eye on the issues of port traffic generally on the eastern side of the island.
Dublin has capacity issues, and there are, perhaps, development plans for the ports at Greenore and Braemore. The ports at Warrenpoint, Belfast and Larne are all well placed to try to enhance, and share, business with other ports. From my attendance at a couple of ports conferences, I have noticed an increase in co-operation among the ports across the island, and I am encouraged by that co-operation.
Warrenpoint port is important strategically to the region that the Member and I represent and to the eastern seaboard generally, and I am fully aware that a link road between the Warrenpoint-to-Newry dual carriageway and the main Belfast-to-Dublin road would be hugely important to the port and its ability to do business both North and South.

Kieran McCarthy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. [Interruption.] Last week, members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure were presented with a beautiful orange badge on which the word “Tá” was written. I understand that tá means “yes”, and, therefore, I am doing my bit to promote the Irish language.
I welcome the Minister’s detailed report, but I am disappointed that, as yet, there has been no mention of the anomaly between North and South on concessionary fares for people aged 60 and over. As usual, the North led the way for people aged 60 and over. Given that we have friends and relatives over the border, will the Minister pursue equality for everyone on the island, so that everyone aged 60 and over — rather than over 66, as it is across the border — can avail themselves of free public transport as soon as possible?

Conor Murphy: I thank the Member for his commentary and use of Irish. He raised several issues. First, there was an anomaly anyway — even when the concessionary fares applied to people aged 65 and over — because the South’s concessionary fares applied to people aged 66 and over. Therefore, there was already a one-year anomaly. Given our intention to reduce the concessionary-fare age limit to 60 in the autumn, an even greater gap will be created between here and the South.
I must point out that the policy in the South is the responsibility of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and not the Department of Transport. Therefore, the North/South Ministerial Council transport sectoral meeting was not the occasion on which to discuss such a matter. Obviously, although reducing the age for eligibility to the concessionary-fares scheme from 66 to 60 would have financial implications for the Government in Dublin, I, and people aged 60 and over throughout the island, would welcome such a policy. However, in the first instance, it is a matter for the Irish Government. Nevertheless, I am content to raise the matter in order to achieve some degree of harmonisation. As I said, there are budgetary implications for the South, and, in the final analysis, it will be a matter for them to decide.

Ministerial Statement

Progress Report on the Independent Review into the Outbreak of Clostridium Difficile at Antrim Area Hospital

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that he wishes to give a progress report on the independent review into the outbreak of clostridium difficile at Antrim Area Hospital.

Michael McGimpsey: I shall update the Assembly on the independent review’s progress on the outbreak of clostridium difficile in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust.
During the debate on 4 March 2008, I said that the situation required an urgent response and immediate action. My first priority was to ensure that the outbreak was contained and that other health and social care trusts were taking all possible steps to minimise the risk of clostridium difficile outbreaks in their hospitals. I announced that I had asked the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) not just to carry out an independent review into the circumstances of the outbreak in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust but to examine the measures being taken by all trusts to reduce healthcare-associated infections.
I set terms of reference to ensure that the review would be rigorous and would have all the powers and expertise necessary to investigate the outbreak thoroughly and examine all five trusts’ management of, and clinical response to, clostridium difficile infections. It was important for the review to be conducted quickly, and I asked the independent review team to report to me on its findings by the end of May.
I have now received the review team’s interim report. The report is, of necessity, interim because the outbreak has not been declared over. From the outset, I have made it clear that the review will be conducted in such a way as not to hamper staff’s efforts to contain the outbreak.
Over the past 12 weeks, the RQIA team has made substantial progress on its independent review. On 30 May, members of the review team reported to me in person, and I received the team’s written report on 1 June. To date, the team has completed its investigation into the other four trusts’ actions to reduce clostridium difficile rates. The team has also gathered substantial documentary evidence from the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, and it carried out a validation visit on 30 May. Further important work must be carried out before the RQIA can deliver its final report, and I will return to that matter.
I met members of the review team on 30 May, and they commented on the tremendous dedication of all staff in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust and their efforts to contain the outbreak. They acknowledge the immense pressure that staff have been under. I witnessed that dedication when I visited the trust, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff. They have worked tirelessly, under extremely demanding conditions, to bring the outbreak to an end. Members should also be reassured to hear that the management of the outbreak is being taken very seriously by everyone in the trust, from the chairperson and the chief executive right down to the cleaners who work on the wards. People at all levels are working hard to ensure that infection control is given the highest priority. The RQIA team has also commented that the chief executive and the medical director of the trust — indeed all the staff — have been very open.
I am pleased to report that there is evidence of progress in containing the outbreak. The month of May saw the lowest number of cases of any month this year, and the severity of the illness has eased. It is still too early to say that the outbreak is over; that improvement must be sustained. To that end, a team is being set up to ensure that policies, procedures and practices for healthcare-associated infections are fully embedded across the trust area. We will continue to monitor the position until we are sure that the measures being taken by the trust are really working and that the outbreak is over.
The independent review team’s report is wide-ranging and important. It makes 36 recommendations that cover four key areas: governance; infection control; laboratories; and pharmacy. Overall, the team has reported that all health and social care trusts have made good progress towards the implementation of effective control measures to reduce the risk of clostridium difficile infections.
The team has given the reassurance that all five health and social care trusts recognise the need to prioritise actions to minimise healthcare-associated infections in general and clostridium difficile in particular. It has further reassured that all the trusts are working to achieve the target that I set last year of an overall reduction of 20% in the number of clostridium difficile cases in hospital patients aged 65 and over by March 2009, and to introduce a programme of action to ensure that plans and procedures are in place, in line with recommended guidance, to reduce the rate of clostridium difficile. In addition, the team points to the skilled and committed staff who are working in infection-control teams in laboratories and pharmacies. The team also highlighted many examples of creative local initiatives to prevent and control infection, and good working relationships between all those involved in infection-control measures across the trusts and boards.
As one would expect, there are challenges for the trusts. In particular, the RQIA recognises that the five trusts were established recently, and, as is normal when dealing with the merging of any complex organisation, they are busy managing the detail of the mergers, including the harmonisation of policies, procedures and practices. The review team identified shortfalls in staffing levels in key professional groups, such as microbiologists, antibiotic pharmacists and infection-control nurses. The team also commented on a wide variation in the quality and condition of hospital facilities, which reflects the age of some of the buildings. In addition, it recommended improvements in the IT systems that support infection prevention and control, especially for surveillance and antimicrobial resistance. The review team comprises leading experts in the fields of clostridium difficile and healthcare-associated infections.
I will now consider the report in more depth, and will take seriously its recommendations and findings. Some issues will need to be addressed more urgently than others, and my Department, and health and social care organisations, will give those priority.
We have not been standing still while awaiting the report. The Department has worked with the Northern Health and Social Care Trust at every step in order to support its efforts. We agreed recently that there would be value in bringing in more external expertise. To that end, we have enlisted the support of the National Health Service’s cleaner-hospitals team. The team visited the Northern Health and Social Care Trust on 7 May 2008 and set about identifying areas for improvement, and making recommendations to help to bring the situation under control.
The trust has established an action plan in order to address the issues that have been raised, and the cleaner-hospitals team will return to the trust on 4 June 2008 to see how well the plan is working. A member of the team will join my Department’s service delivery unit for two days a week for the next few months. Their role will be further to assist the Northern Health and Social Care Trust to end the outbreak, and to work with other trusts to improve infection prevention and control.
We will never be able to eradicate healthcare-associated infections. However, there must be sufficient controls and systems to minimise the risk to patients. That is why I announced in January an extensive range of measures to tackle the so-called hospital superbugs. An additional £9 million will be invested over the next three years to improve patient safety and to reduce the spread of infections such as MRSA and clostridium difficile.
New initiatives to tackle healthcare-associated infections include single rooms for new hospitals in order to improve hygiene and privacy; a rolling programme, which is under way, of unannounced hygiene inspections of all hospitals; restrictions on hospital visits, which I announced this morning; a dress code for healthcare staff, which is being introduced; a regional hand-hygiene campaign to encourage healthcare staff and visitors to wash their hands; MRSA screening for high-risk patients; additional funding to set up rapid-response cleaning teams at all hospitals; and funding for a pharmacist in each trust area to work with clinical staff to promote safer prescribing of antibiotics.
There are policies already in place to tackle healthcare-associated infections including the Changing the Culture action plan and the ward sister’s charter, which aim to reduce infections and to give nurses the power to create a cleanliness culture in their wards. My Department is also convening a committee to tackle the problem of antimicrobial resistance.
In addition, last September, I announced new targets to reduce MRSA by 10% and clostridium difficile by 20%. New leaflets for the public on hand hygiene have been distributed to hospitals. Enhanced staff training on infection reduction is ongoing, and extra funding was provided for the appointment of five infection-control nurses for trusts. Those measures are intended to ensure that all staff have the skills, training and equipment that they need to reduce the spread of healthcare-associated infections. More importantly, they should also help to restore public confidence in the health and social care service.
I said that this is an interim report, because the review team cannot have full access to the affected wards until we are sure that the outbreak is over. I have, therefore, given the review team an extension for delivering its final report. That extension does not mean that anyone is less committed to ending the outbreak or to improving infection control across Northern Ireland — quite the opposite. We are determined to get to the root causes of the outbreak. I have asked the review team to produce its final report as soon as possible after the outbreak is over, and it is expected to deliver the report by the end of July.
The review team is determined that the best way to discover the cause of the outbreak is by a root-cause analysis, which is a retrospective inquiry to identify how and why an incident happened. The purpose of that approach is not to apportion blame but to identify preventable factors and the lessons that must be learned. Once the team has completed that review, it will review the Changing the Culture action plan, and it is aiming to complete that job by the end of October.
I acknowledge the work of the review team and the fact that it has delivered such a substantial and important report in a short space of time.
During discussions on the clostridium difficile outbreak at the end of last year, there were calls for a public inquiry. At that time, I said that I was minded to hold such an inquiry. However, my first priority was to ensure that the outbreak was contained and that other health trusts were taking every possible step to prevent clostridium difficile outbreaks from occurring in hospitals. I did not take that step lightly, nor did I take it without the expert advice of the Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland, Dr Michael McBride.
The situation required an urgent response and immediate action, and I believed that a public inquiry could not deliver that. In fact, a public inquiry at that time would have served only to deflect staff from their vital work in trying to reduce and control infections, such as clostridium difficile and MRSA. That would have put patients at risk, and I cannot and will not do that. Furthermore, a public inquiry could not have delivered so much in such a compressed period.
As I have said before, it is not possible to eliminate healthcare-associated infections completely, but we can and must adopt a zero-tolerance approach to them. That means that no case of infection is regarded as acceptable, and the response to each new case is immediate and urgent.
Healthcare-associated infections cause pain and distress to patients, and the outbreak has led to a loss of public confidence in our health and social care service. It is clear from the RQIA’s interim report that healthcare staff at all levels take the matter very seriously and are working extremely hard, often under severe pressure, to reduce the spread of such infections.
My Department is considering the interim report carefully, and its recommendations, in particular, which require a region-wide response. Infection, prevention and control are everyone’s business, and the inquiry shows the value of co-operation in making healthcare safer and restoring people’s confidence in their healthcare system.

Michelle O'Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wish that I could welcome the Minister’s statement, but, unfortunately, it is lacking in detail and substance. At the heart of this issue is the fact that more than 40 people have died from hospital-acquired infections. Families of the deceased and others who have contracted hospital-acquired infections want and deserve answers.
People have cancelled their surgeries and hospital visits because of fears of acquiring such infections, yet the Minister is discussing an incomplete inquiry. According to the Minister, the report makes 36 recommendations to improve current standards and practices in hospitals. However, neither I, as Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee, nor any other Member have received a copy of that report. When will we receive a copy of it, and when will the 36 recommendations be implemented?
If we want to restore public confidence in the Health Service, we must see action, and we must see those recommendations implemented. It has been six months since the first outbreak was discussed in the House, and we still do not have answers for people. When will those people get answers?

Michael McGimpsey: As I explained to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee this morning, I have only just received the report. I will share the report with all Members later today, and Mrs O’Neill will be able to examine it more closely then.
There are key messages in that report, which we are considering. One of the key messages concerns the state of our hospital buildings. It is very difficult to keep old buildings up to the levels of cleanliness of new ones. There is a shortage of pharmacists who are skilled in the application of specific types of antibiotics to deal with particular infections. Furthermore, there is a shortage of microbiologists and a need for infection-control nurses. With the benefit of hindsight, those people should have been in place. However, this is a recent phenomenon, and we are working and moving quickly to try to deal with it.
I have already put some measures in place, such as the Changing the Culture action plan. I also announced further measures, to which I referred in my speech, including restrictions on hospital visiting, a dress code for staff, a regional hand-hygiene campaign and MRSA screening for high-risk patients, among other measures.
Those measures are working effectively, as is the raft of other measures, such as single rooms and newbuilds. As I reported to the House previously, environmental cleanliness audits and unannounced inspections are now in place. After consideration, the review team did not disagree with the introduction of those measures. However, as its role requires, the team has identified gaps.
Mrs O’Neill is correct; we must increase public confidence, which has been knocked since the incidences of healthcare-associated infections. We understand — or at least accept — that we can never eliminate those infections; we can, however, restrict them to the absolute minimum level.

Alex Easton: Will the Minister outline how many new cases of clostridium difficile were identified at Antrim Area Hospital last month? Is sufficient funding in place to implement the 36 recommendations to reduce clostridium difficile levels? What measures are in place to screen hospital staff who might carry the infection?

Michael McGimpsey: Expert advice suggests that screening for clostridium difficile is not helpful. For example, a large proportion of over 65s — approximately 30% — carry clostridium difficile. When symptoms emerge, we must react, instigate isolation and control the infection. At Antrim Area Hospital, the number of deaths has decreased from February’s peak of 14, to three in March, two in April and two in May.
If we can restrict deaths to that level, the outbreak can be declared over. However, we must reach a point at which no new cases are emerging. The number of new cases has decreased from 20 in January 2008 to 10 in February, 17 in March, 18 in April and three in May. Therefore, the numbers are tailing off, but it takes time to reach the point at which we can declare the outbreak over. The problem is that the review team cannot complete its inquiry until the outbreak is over. We cannot remove staff from isolation wards to deal with the inquiry team’s queries until we are confident that the outbreak is over — otherwise lives will be at risk.

Robert Coulter: On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Minister on introducing initiatives to contain and eliminate the clostridium difficile outbreak. I pay tribute to the staff — particularly in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust — who have worked hard to combat clostridium difficile. During my numerous visits, I witnessed the work conducted by the chief executive of that trust, Norma Evans, and her team.
Does the Minister agree that staff must not be deflected from their duties? Will he commit to offer the future support that is necessary to eliminate the problem of clostridium difficile?

Michael McGimpsey: I assure Rev Coulter that I will leave no stone unturned in my quest to tackle that problem. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust has worked hard and adopted a dedicated approach. I have visited the isolation ward and talked to staff; one could not fail to be impressed with their serious approach to their work.
There is a shortage of the skilled infection-control nurses, antibiotic pharmacists and microbiologists that are required. I will consider a human resources strategy to determine how to deal with that situation. The more serious consequences in the Northern Trust area, particularly in Antrim Area Hospital, as the Member is aware, have been caused by the new and virulent clostridium difficile 027 strain.

Carmel Hanna: I welcome the Minister’s update. I have met the review team, and I appreciate the time that it spent in informing me of its work. Although progress has been made, and we are aware that the lowest number of deaths as a result of the infection was recorded in May, we are still concerned that the infection is ongoing.
The Minister mentioned that the RQIA process highlighted the staffing shortfall. Is that being addressed? Are infection reductions and ward inspections being recorded in order to ensure that the maintenance of high standards is continued?

Michael McGimpsey: Several unannounced inspections have taken place already. They have been recorded, and reports have been issued. The consequences of and responses to those reports will also be issued. Unannounced inspections have taken place at Craigavon Area Hospital, Belfast City Hospital, Downe Hospital and Altnagelvin Area Hospital. That work will continue.
We must address the staffing situation, and I am putting resources in place as necessary. For example, there will be a pharmacist in each trust area to work on this particular area. Microbiologists also play a key role. The microbiologist in Antrim Area Hospital impressed me strongly when she spoke to me about the need for a microbiological approach to the identification of both the infection and the correct antibiotic to deal with it. We must move away from the broad-spectrum antibiotics that are the root cause of so many problems.
When infection breaks out, we must control it. In order to do so, we must have skilled infection-control nurses, but we must also change the infection-control culture, from the cleaners through to the chief executives and the chairmen. We must have the right culture at the root of everything that we do.

Kieran McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his report. However, it will not be of much comfort to people who, over the past while, have lost loved ones as a result of this outbreak. The report contains 36 recommendations, and another Member asked whether the Minister would have the funding to put those recommendations into practice as quickly as possible.
In the report, the review team identified the shortfall in staffing levels. I am concerned about the Department’s policy to achieve 3% efficiency savings over the next three years under the RPA. That will commit the Department to further staff reductions. If the Minister goes down that road, will that complicate matters further and make it more difficult to overcome clostridium difficile?

Michael McGimpsey: I have no choice but to go down the road of the 3% efficiency savings. Over and over again, Members have reinforced to me the need for efficiency. I heard a discussion this morning between the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Chair­person of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on that issue. It is important to point out, for example, that the Department’s underspend last year rose above 1% precisely because of its efficiency.
The Department overachieved in savings on the drugs budget to the tune of £20 million more than was anticipated. That skewed our figures over that 1% underspend, so instead of being the best-performing Department as usual, it was the second-best. That information is contained in a letter to Mrs Robinson, which I will circulate to all Members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety; I know that they will be interested in that.
Although we have been successful in achieving efficiencies, not all efficiencies have to come at the expense of staff.
We anticipate achieving reasonable efficiencies in our drug budget, because it runs to about £400 million a year through chemists’ shops and pharmacies.
As for staffing, we need staff with the right skills, and there are gaps that we must fill. The phenomenon of healthcare-associated infections appeared suddenly. Although clostridium difficile and MRSA have always existed, the sudden rise in their incidence has taken the system by surprise in recent years. We must get on top of that, because patient confidence is everything. Anything that detracts from patients’ confidence in the Health Service is very damaging to the healthcare of the entire population. We have a first-class Health Service, manned by first-class staff, and I will make every effort to ensure that systems are put in place where they are needed.

Thomas Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I commend him on the work that has been done to try to eradicate clostridium difficile. Like the Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee, I am disappointed that the Committee has not seen the 36 recommendations, and I look forward to seeing them.
At the time of the clostridium difficile outbreak, concern was expressed that nursing staff had no proper changing facilities, which resulted in their travelling to and from work in their uniforms. What has the Department done to address that matter? Is the Minister confident that his Department’s new initiatives to reduce the spread of infection are adequate, not only to hold infection at bay, but to eradicate it?

Michael McGimpsey: The new initiatives must be proven. All new initiatives are kept under constant review. For example, I have asked Alice Casey and her independent review team to review the Department’s ‘Changing the Culture’ action plan straight after completing their current review of the outbreak in the Northern Trust. It is important that we keep on top of the issue and keep the initiatives up to date.
With regard to uniforms, infection control requires protective equipment and clothing. That is essential for protecting the health of staff. I have introduced a dress code for all staff, which will work its way through the system as the trusts implement it. It is patchy at the moment, but we will continue to develop a dress-code policy to ensure that staff are recognisable to people attending hospital and that they are not carrying infection by constantly wearing everyday clothes.

Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too welcome the update from the Minister. The RQIA review is mainly an in-house review. Although it can be justified as an urgent response to the outbreak, we should acknowledge the need to address public concerns. I wish to preface my question by commending the dedication and professionalism of healthcare staff and the support and guidance that they have been given by the RQIA.
However, a review such as that by the RQIA does not alleviate public alarm at the perception of falling hygiene standards. Indeed, the RQIA process might even increase the frustration of many who feel that the matter should have been dealt with more openly and transparently.
Six months on, will the Minister acknowledge the high level of public concern, and recognise the need for a public inquiry into what caused the initial outbreak, and why it was so difficult to access accurate, up-to-date information on clostridium difficile-related deaths?

Michael McGimpsey: The review team is an independent body that was recruited in England. Alice Casey and her team possess an impressive amount of expertise. I hope that the Committee will have an opportunity to speak to them in due course. It is 12 weeks — not six months — since we established the review team.
At that time, I also stated that I was minded to have a public inquiry, not least to restore public confidence. However, a public inquiry would take at least a year. Time limits can be set, but, ultimately, the inspector will take as much time as he believes is required. A key element of the inquiry will be to pull staff out of the trust, Antrim Area Hospital, isolation wards, and so on, to give evidence — and those people are busy at the moment. The point that I made was that, at the moment, a public inquiry would have difficulty in doing anything more than to carry out a general scoping of the situation.
I will be advised by Members of the House and of the Committee on whether to proceed with a public inquiry. Essential to restoring public confidence in the Health Service is that the House should state that it has confidence in the system. That would be a major boost. The public must have confidence, rather than anxiety, in the Health Service. If and when we hold a public inquiry, the work that Alice Casey’s team has done will prove absolutely invaluable and save months of work.

Trevor Clarke: My question concerns public confidence. Many people, such as the elderly, do not have confidence in the Health Service and would prefer to be treated at home. I was alarmed by the Minister’s suggestion that the introduction of a uniform policy is somewhat “patchy”. People would see a uniform policy at first hand so — to encourage public confidence — surely, that issue should have been addressed at the outset. Indeed, uniform policy has been discussed on the news, and on ‘Talkback’ and ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’ on BBC Radio Ulster.
When visiting hospitals, I have noticed that hand-washing facilities are positioned only on wards. Would it not boost public confidence if those facilities were located at hospital entrances, where everyone would be encouraged to use them?

Michael McGimpsey: Hand-washing facilities should be in place both on the wards and at hospital entrances. Our simple and key message is: “Wash your hands”. If all visitors and staff routinely washed their hands when entering and leaving hospital premises, there would be a major reduction in the incidence of infections.
I said that uniform policy is “patchy” because it is not consistent throughout the trusts. Hospitals must implement a uniform policy for all staff — nurses, doctors, consultants and so on. They must all be dressed appropriately to ensure that they are not carrying infection. The doctors and nurses are the experts in this matter because they are the people who deal with infections.
I also announced an environmental cleaning programme; indeed, we have already held an environmental audit. Another important measure is the restriction on hospital visits, as outlined in the Changing the Culture action plan. It is not appropriate that anyone can walk into a hospital to make a visit at any time of day or night. That was having an adverse impact on wards, patients and staff. Intensive care units will be subject to strict visiting times in the future. We will also examine meal times and a number of other matters. However, I cannot implement such measures by clicking my fingers; they must work their way through the system.
Given that staff co-operation is essential, they have to be trained and instructed — it is not a matter of waving a magic wand. I am aware that public interest in the matter has been reflected on the ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’ and on ‘Talk Back’. I have talked on the matter on both those programmes on more than one occasion. We will continue to work on the problem. There is no magic fix for it: it will take work and effort over a long time.

John McCallister: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I commend him for the speed with which he brought it to the House after receiving the report. I join other Members in paying tribute to Health Service staff at all levels. They have worked tirelessly to make good progress on this outbreak in difficult circumstances.
Will the Minister confirm that his decision to set up an independent review has not hampered the efforts of staff? Does the interim report provide any guidance on how we can restore public confidence and educate the public on its responsibilities when visiting hospitals?

Michael McGimpsey: I confirm that the review has not hampered the work of hospital staff, and I thank the Member for remarking on how hard staff have worked. They have worked extremely hard, and they are dedicated. At times, certain comments make them feel unappreciated, which is unfortunate. They are doing sterling work. They did not invent the problem, but they are dealing with it for the benefit of patients.
The inquiry made 36 recommendations. I received the report on Sunday, and I will share it with the House before close of play this afternoon so that Members have an early opportunity to see it. I have referred in my speech to several of its recommendations, and I look forward to Members’ responses.

Claire McGill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement, and I, along with the Minister and other Members, commend the efforts of healthcare staff.
I see from the Minister’s statement that funding was provided for five infection-control nurses last September. Have they been appointed? Are there only five? Is there one infection-control nurse for the Western Health and Social Care Trust area? Is there one nurse for the Tyrone County Hospital, for example? Go raibh maith agat.

Michael McGimpsey: A team of infection-control nurses is in operation. Furthermore, one director in charge of each trust area — normally the medical director — looks after and is responsible for infection control. He also has a team of people working on it. The nurses are a key element in the strategy; however, that does not mean that there is only one nurse in each trust area responsible for infection control. The important element is the education of and support for the workforce. There are some 16,000 nurses in the system, and the Western Trust has its allocation of those nurses, who must be supported. If more support or extra people are required, I will consider providing them. The infection-control strategy involves giving nurses the support that they need, educating the workforce in preventing the spread of infection, and promoting good practice.
Just as we have people in each trust who focus on staff safety and support when staff are assaulted, we also have people in each trust who focus on infection. That does not mean that that is the only work that is being done — far from it.

Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, but it does not contain much detail for people to go on. However, it is a progress report, so it has to be looked at as such. In the Minister’s response to questions on his statement, I detected that he was putting some blame for the occurrence of clostridium difficile on patients, their families and everyone else, but it seemed that the Department was washing its hands of any blame. Ultimately, the blame lies with the Department that is running the healthcare service. I do not think that everyone has access to a quality healthcare service, particularly in my constituency of Mid Ulster where people have been told that the local hospital is not safe, but patients are being transferred there.
I congratulate most of the hospital staff, but not all of them. Is the Minister aware that there are consultants in the Antrim Area Hospital who are actually telling families that it is inevitable that an elderly patient with clostridium difficile is going to die and that they should prepare themselves for that? That consultant is also directing that the drips and medication be removed; even water is being removed from some patients in what they term the Liverpool pathway to death system. Serious questions must be asked.
Recently, I visited Daisy Hill Hospital, and the facilities that the Minister says should be available in Antrim Area Hospital are not available in Daisy Hill Hospital. There is no isolation facility; four, five and six visitors are permitted into the side ward of a patient with clostridium difficile; there are no displayed notices stating that there are clostridium difficile sufferers in the ward; and there are no displayed notices instructing people to wash their hands. However, there is a facility at the end of the ward at which people can wash their hands if they wish.
There are serious flaws in the system, and the Minister must take responsibility for ensuring that the patients’ quality of life and care is well attended to. That is particularly important for the elderly.
People — especially the elderly — are not confident that the healthcare facility is to enhance their healthcare and is not merely a pathway to death, as seems to be the case. Will the Minister respond and ensure that consultants in those hospitals are not preparing people for death and dismissing the protestations of families? The Minister said that there was a reduction in the number of deaths from clostridium difficile. I know why one patient was saved from death. The elderly individual’s family was told that the patient was dying, but they protested and got the hospital staff to resume the patient’s drip treatment and medication.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please ask a question, Mr Molloy.

Francie Molloy: That was an important point, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister confirm that that is happening in the Antrim Area Hospital?

Michael McGimpsey: I repudiate entirely the suggestion that I blamed patients and families. I said that hand hygiene was one of the key steps towards helping to eradicate clostridium difficile, and I have tried to emphasise that. I am not here to apportion blame; I am here to address the issue.
Mr Molloy makes a very serious accusation against consultants in Antrim Area Hospital, and I expect him to back it up by giving me the names of the consultants and the families involved, so that I can carry out an investigation. His remarks are not helpful as far as patient confidence and Antrim Area Hospital staff are concerned. I will investigate those matters and the so-called Liverpool pathway to death. I am not aware of a Liverpool pathway to death system in Antrim Area Hospital or any other hospital. I will take action if Mr Molloy can prove that his accusations are true. Allegations, accusations and assertions are made often, but I do not get evidence. I look forward to the evidence in this case.
I will also investigate the situation at the Daisy Hill Hospital. The Southern Health and Social Care Trust is a very good trust. The Member will be aware that Daisy Hill Hospital is one of the hospital buildings highlighted in the report as being long past its sell-by date, and it is difficult to achieve the required levels. However, that is no excuse for inadequate and inappropriate facilities. Hand washing is part of the hand-hygiene measures that I expect trusts to observe.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.
The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) —

North/South Minsterial Council — Aquaculture and Marine Sectoral Meeting

John Dallat: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council aquaculture and marine sectoral meeting.

Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding the recent meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in aquaculture and marine sectoral format. The meeting was held at Dublin Castle on Wednesday 21 May 2008. The Executive were represented by Edwin Poots MLA, Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and myself. The Irish Government were represented by Eamon Ryan TD, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. This statement has been agreed with Minister Edwin Poots.
The chairperson of the board of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, Mr Tarlach O’Crosain, and the chief executive of the Loughs Agency, Mr Derick Anderson, presented a report to the Council on developments that have occurred since the previous meeting in November 2007.
Ministers noted that the Loughs Agency is developing plans for the delivery of its marine tourism and recreational fishing strategy and asked the chief executive to formulate a fuller report on that strategy, detailing plans for collaborative work with other bodies, to be presented at a future meeting of the Council.
The Council noted the ongoing work to develop an emergency procedure for the approval of regulations to deal with events requiring immediate intervention for the protection of the fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Ministers received a comprehensive presentation on the Loughs Agency’s aquaculture and shellfisheries strategy, and, following discussions, agreed that they look forward to receiving a report on its implement­ation at a future meeting.
Ministers also noted the agency’s plan to finalise a management agreement later this year, with a view to initiating aquaculture licensing in Lough Foyle during 2009.
The Council noted progress on the commencement Orders that are required for a staged and managed introduction of the new powers that are available to the Loughs Agency to develop and license aquaculture and to protect the fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Ministers welcomed the agency’s legislation implementation plan and noted that NSMC approval will be required for five sets of regulations in June and for a further nine sets later in 2008.
The Council agreed that its next meeting in the aquaculture and marine sectoral format would take place in June 2008, with a further meeting in October or November 2008. Go raibh maith agat.

William McCrea: The Council noted:
“the ongoing work to develop an emergency procedure for the approval of regulations to deal with events requiring immediate intervention”.
What emergency procedures does the Minister have in mind so that she can intervene now to ensure that no more boats from the Northern Ireland fleet follow the seven vessels that have been forced to tie up in the past two weeks because of escalating fuel costs? Where are the emergency procedures to deal with such events, which demand immediate departmental intervention? Why can the Minister not find the £1 million for the de minimis scheme, which would represent an immediate intervention, when her Department has underspent its budget by more than £31 million?

Michelle Gildernew: The NSMC meeting in aquaculture and marine sectoral format dealt solely with issues that come under the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission’s area of responsibility. The Chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development’s question deals with issues that are outside that area of responsibility. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to deal with those issues as part of my statement. However, if the Chairman writes to me about those issues, which, I accept, are urgent, I am happy to address them.

Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a ráiteas.
When will the fishermen of Lough Foyle, who have surrendered their drift nets, receive their hardship payments?

Michelle Gildernew: In December 2007, the Loughs Agency made the first payments to affected fishermen, which totalled €2·5 million. I was fully aware of the matter, partly due to lobbying by Foyle MLAs. The second stage of the payment, which totalled €600,000, was paid in April 2008, and the final stage of the payment is expected to occur in spring 2009.

Pat Ramsey: I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the Loughs Agency’s marine-tourism plans in Foyle. Does the Minister know with whom the Loughs Agency is co-operating to implement those plans?
I have some concerns about recreational fishing. Why did no consultation take place with the Loughs Agency advisory forum before fishing was banned on the River Finn? Why is the modern and accessible fishing area at Greenbrae, which is on the River Foyle near Lifford, still not open despite the amount of money that was spent preparing it for fishermen?

Michelle Gildernew: The Council will receive a full presentation on the marine-tourism strategy at the next meeting. Ministers were informed about the Loughs Agency application for more than €8 million of funding for the strategy and about smaller-scale projects, such as angling development, which are about to receive agency funding. I encourage the agency’s chief executive to ensure that those projects benefit both tourists and local people in the areas concerned.
The agency is developing regulations to provide for permit-controlled angling on the tidal River Foyle at the Greenbrae’s fishery. The agency expects to go to public consultation on its proposals in the near future, and it is anticipated that those regulations will come into operation in early 2009.
The Member recognised that, in order to conserve stocks, that measure was required. That matter will be the subject of public consultation.

Jim Shannon: Does the Department have any intention to widen the aquaculture initiatives to other parts of the Province, including Lough Neagh and Strangford Lough?
Some concern has been expressed about intensive for-the-plate aquaculture enterprises and the fear that, sometimes, diseases that can result from that industry can infect some native species. Will the Minister advise the House what steps have been taken to ensure that any disease that can result from intensive aquaculture will not, and cannot, reach native fish and species?
My second question perhaps comes under the Minister’s remit, as well as that of the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Edwin Poots, because it concerns angling and fishing initiatives. We are all aware that fishing initiatives can bring great benefits to the whole Province. Will there be a spin-off from angling tourism and initiatives that would reach far beyond Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle?

Michelle Gildernew: The NSMC met to discuss the Foyle and Carlingford areas. During that meeting, the Loughs Agency presented its plans for aquaculture in those areas. Significant potential exists to develop that sector, which is already valuable in both areas.
The transfer of aquaculture-licensing powers to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission will allow aquaculture operations in Lough Foyle to be licensed through the Loughs Agency for the first time. That is an important step to ensure that a transparently good standard of practice in relation to husbandry, hygiene, fish welfare, disease control and environmental impact is in place. Control also exists through regulations under EU directives and aquaculture-licensing conditions.
The aquaculture sector is not punching above its weight. Further potential exists for the European fisheries fund to be used again for aquaculture opportunities.
The Loughs Agency is 5conducting a review into its licence fees and charges, and decisions on the settlement of fees for the 2009 season will be taken on the basis of the findings of that review.
I am taking questions on what was discussed at the NSMC sectoral meeting; therefore, further issues about licensing should not be discussed during this plenary sitting. However, I am happy to respond in writing to any queries that the Member may have.

Ministerial Statement

Northern Ireland Events Company

John Dallat: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the Northern Ireland Events Company (NIEC).

Edwin Poots: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a further statement to the Assembly about the Northern Ireland Events Company. Members will be aware that, last September, the acting chief executive and accounting officer of the Northern Ireland Events Company notified the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) that he had become aware of a significant overspend, and that the company was in a budget-deficit position.
At the insistence of DCAL, an emergency board meeting was convened on 5 October 2007, and the company was directed by the Department to establish the extent of the overspend, and to provide an explanation as to how it arose. The departmental accounting officer accordingly informed the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I briefed the Executive on 8 November 2007. On 22 November 2007, following consultation with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I presented a paper to the Executive.
At their meeting on 22 November 2007, the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that DCAL would:
“meet the liabilities of the NIEC as identified by external auditors appointed by the company as presented at today’s Executive and to be verified by the professional financial adviser appointed by DCAL with a view to the company being wound up at the earliest opportunity.”
The Northern Ireland Events Company was instructed not to enter into any further financial commitments without the express permission of the Department, and that its activities should focus solely on winding up its affairs in an orderly fashion. On 26 November 2007, I made a statement to the Assembly that informed Members of the background to the financial deficit of the NIEC and the steps that had been agreed by the Executive to address the matter.
In my statement, I said that I wanted to implement a comprehensive and authoritative review of the financial affairs of the company in order to enable me to fully assess the position. In addition, I said that I would advise the House further when that position became clearer. I also said that I would commission an independent comprehensive review of all the circumstances surrounding the deficit accumulated by NIEC and report back to the House, at the earliest opportunity, on the findings of that review.
On 28 November 2007, the Department asked KPMG independent professional financial advisers to carry out a comprehensive and authoritative review of the financial affairs of the company; to advise on meeting the existing liabilities of NIEC and the most appropriate method of winding up the company in an orderly manner; and to carry out a comprehensive review of all the circumstances surrounding the deficit accumulated by NIEC.
It was anticipated that the report on the independent review of NIEC would have been completed by the end of February 2008. Essential to that review were interviews with board members of NIEC and the former chief executive, in which they were given opportunities to answer some specific questions in relation to their knowledge and understanding of how the deficit arose. Owing to the time that was required to conduct those interviews — and the complex and sensitive matters that were being examined — the report was not completed within the original timescale.
The Department has now received the draft independent review report. It contains matters of public concern, about which Members will wish to be fully informed. I have a duty to ensure that those matters are brought to the attention of this House, and to ensure that they are dealt with rigorously and urgently.
The report contains matters of a sensitive legal and financial nature, on which I sought advice. In making this statement, I must be mindful of the possibility of further investigative work. I do not wish to prejudice the continuing investigations by what I say in the House. As a result of those investigations, certain matters could be referred to the PSNI and, ultimately, to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).
Furthermore, matters may also be referred to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for further action under companies legislation. As a Government Minister, I do not want to prejudice those further investigations, or the potential for properly holding those responsible to account. I must, therefore, restrict my public comment at this stage. These are serious matters, with potentially serious financial consequences. However, in outlining the key findings of the report, I assure Members that I will be as open and informative as I can be within those constraints and circumstances.
By 31 March 2008, KPMG estimated the NIEC financial deficit to be £1,662,450. That figure excludes non-quantifiable contingent liabilities, and has accum­ulated since 1 March 2005, when it was £440,337. The deficit occurred because of a fundamental breakdown of controls and procedures at a number of levels. The company began to directly manage and carry out activities in relation to certain events without the knowledge and proper approval of the board, as opposed to the normal practice of providing grant aid to third parties. In addition, the company did that without the knowledge or approval of DCAL.
NIEC entered into future-years commitments without accounting for such commitments properly, without proper departmental authority to do so, or clear budgetary provision for those commitments.
One contract was entered into as late as last September, one week before the company informed the Department of the financial deficit. That contract permitted the company to run certain motocross events for each year up until 2012.
The deficit was not uncovered for a number of reasons: inaccuracies in the accounts; lack of clarity and understanding of accounting policies; excess funding was drawn down from DCAL; in-year bids were made to DCAL for additional funding; sponsorship and other income was used by the company, and payments were deferred from one financial year to the next.
Under company law, the board was responsible for the company’s affairs. The chief executive and, subsequently, the acting chief executive, were accounting officers for the Northern Ireland Events Company for the relevant periods and appear to have enjoyed the full confidence of the board. The chief executive, as accounting officer, had particular responsibility for informing the board on all matters relating to the financial management of the company.
However, the board may have been denied relevant information about the true financial position of NIEC. In addition, the evidence strongly suggests that the board was not sufficiently involved or informed prior to major funding commitments being entered into. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the board was made aware of the substantial financial obligations that were being taken on in the name of NIEC, and there is some evidence to show that by the time the board was consulted, a commitment had already been entered into in some cases. If the board had been more robust in its interrogative approach, it may have been alerted to those issues earlier.
The company’s accounting officer also had particular responsibility to ensure that the Department was notified properly of underspends and overspends. It will be a matter of public concern as to why those responsibilities were not properly exercised, and they will be subject to further investigation. Operational controls lie very clearly with the Northern Ireland Events Company’s directors and accounting officer. The Department was heavily reliant on both the accounting officer and the directors discharging their responsibilities effectively.
The Department’s role was to ensure that the fundamental architecture of governance was put in place. The KPMG report found that although there was a framework of governance and controls put in place by the Department, there was a breakdown in the operation of those controls and good governance that led to fundamental breaches of extensive parts of the company’s constitution, rules and authorities. That led to an estimated £1,662,450, which the company’s accounting officers were personally responsible for controlling, being committed on behalf of NIEC without proper control or authorisation. The lion’s share of that money was used to finance a small number of motocross-type events from 2004 onwards. The situation was allowed to continue for some time until, effectively, the company ran out of funding in September 2007.
In KPMG’s opinion, the management of the company finances, financial reporting and financial controls were poor; the directors did not fully discharge all their director obligations; they placed an over-reliance on the former chief executive and the external auditors, and they delegated powers to the former chief executive without proper controls. The duties set out in the accounting officer designation letters were not performed adequately, and the accounting officer’s statement on internal control and reliance on represent­ations at regular monitoring meetings provided the Department with assurances that have proved to be unfounded. The Department did not identify the shortcomings due to the lack of a sufficiently interrogative and robust challenge of the company’s accounting officer and the board.
The report raises serious questions about the conduct of named individuals and suggests further investigation. It does not discount the possibility of fraud, criminal activity or civil proceedings, and the Department will need to consider carefully whether it can seek to recover money that may have been obtained unlawfully or payments that have been made on the basis of misrepresentations by certain parties.
The potential for recovery will require careful consideration and, if appropriate, vigorous pursuit. It is, therefore, vital that I, the Department and the House take no action that would inadvertently prejudice those investigations or make any recovery more difficult.
In my statement to the House on 26 November 2007, I reported that the Executive had agreed that my Department should assist in meeting the existing liabilities of NIEC, as verified by an appropriate independent professional appointed by my Department. I can now tell the House that 144 creditors were owed a total of £938,008·87. Of those creditors, 135, or 94%, have been paid a total of £884,221·95. Under the direction of the board, and in consultation with my Department, those creditors that have not been paid are being investigated. Once they are verified, my Department will be in a position to deal with them in the same way as the other creditors.
The Department is also aware that independent financial advisers identified several contingent liabilities on NIEC, some of which are, at this stage, unquantifiable. They include any costs arising from potential legal action and winding-up costs. The board, in conjunction with DCAL, is examining and dealing with each liability and unverified creditor on a case-by-case basis, and legal advice is being taken with a view to resolving, or otherwise, those claims.
As the precise nature and extent of the contingent liabilities remain the cause of some concern, the manner in which the company handles them will have a significant impact on whether the company is solvent or insolvent when it is wound up. Legally, that is a matter for the board of directors in the first instance.
I also reported to the House that an external review had been commissioned of the monitoring arrangements between the Department and other arm’s-length bodies for which it is responsible. The review was carried out by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, a professional accountancy body that specialises in the public sector. Its report is being finalised, but I understand that it identifies several areas that require improvement to address areas of weakness in DCAL’s sponsorship of its arm’s-length bodies. In line with commitments made to the Public Accounts Committee, the departmental accounting officer will progress the report’s recommendations as a matter of urgency.
In reporting these matters to the House, I am conscious that significant benefits resulted from attracting major events to Northern Ireland. The rationale for taking such urgent and decisive steps is to ensure that worthwhile events can proceed, but I remain adamant that they must do so within a properly controlled financial framework. Therefore, I have given urgent consideration to the future delivery of the events function and how to ensure that the transition to any new arrangements agreed under the review of public administration (RPA) is managed in a manner that secures the continuity of attracting and hosting major events in Northern Ireland.
Under RPA, the assumption was that promotional activities and events would transfer from DCAL to DETI, where the functions would be discharged by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB). Under that arrangement, the company was to be dissolved by the current directors. DETI has indicated that it remains committed, in principle, to the transfer, but that in light of ongoing disclosures, its continued commitment is subject to its being satisfied with the results of due diligence inquiries.
The Executive made the decision to protect, as far as possible, the business continuity of imminent events and those in the pipeline and, in due course, to transfer the events function to NITB and DETI, subject to my agreement and that of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I agreed that my Department would take on the interim management of the events function. An events unit has been established in DCAL to deal with outstanding grant funding agreements and outstanding applications made to NIEC to the end of October 2007. Further grant funding programmes have been launched for funding available from the major events fund and the events growth fund.
Twenty-six applications were received by the closing date of 2 May, and they are being evaluated with a view to grant-funding decisions being made by mid-June. The events unit will not engage in running events directly: that will be the role of appropriately experienced and qualified event promoters and organisers.
Members are aware that the Public Accounts Committee is the Standing Committee of the Assembly that is responsible for examining such matters. That Committee has given early consideration to the Northern Ireland Events Company in its ‘Report on Good Governance — Effective Relationships between Departments and their Arm’s Length Bodies’, dated 24 April 2008. I share that Committee’s view that this is one of the most serious failures of control in an arm’s-length body in recent years, and I understand that it intends to revisit the matter in some detail once the investigatory process is complete. I am sure that the House will not wish to pre-empt the further investigations required or the findings of the Public Accounts Committee. I am assured that the matter will be examined thoroughly and that the lessons will be learned and applied.

Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I place on record my Committee’s dissatisfaction with the poor level of engagement there has been ahead of today’s statement. Many efforts were made today to gain clarification; to gain a briefing for the Committee, or the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or to even have the Committee furnished with a copy of the statement well in advance of its release to the House. None of those high standards of consultation with the Committee were observed.
How much responsibility does the Department accept for the gross mismanagement of the public finances under its control? Given the way in which the Minister has presented the situation, one could be forgiven for thinking that he is washing his hands of responsibility for an arm’s-length body. The Committee was told that the Department is examining all arrangements for non-departmental public bodies to prevent this sort of thing happening again. What has been the outcome of the external review of the monitoring arrangements between the Department and other arm’s-length bodies for which it is responsible to make sure that this does not happen again?

Edwin Poots: As far as the Department is concerned, significant infrastructure and control mechanisms were put in place, which in turn placed a high level of responsibility on the chief executive and board of the company; and the Department was responsible for monitoring those controls. In reality, the responsibilities were not discharged fully and fell well short of the public accountability requirements envisaged in those infrastructure and control mechanisms.
The control framework that was in place included: establishing the body as a company limited by guarantee; its articles and memorandum of association; management statement and financial memoranda; corporate and business plans; quarterly monitoring meetings; provision of financial information as part of monthly financial meetings and support of draw-down funds; an annual report; and financial accounts.
The Department has highlighted matters of concern relating to its role in monitoring and overseeing the NIEC, and it is considered that the Department was insufficiently assertive in its oversight of the company. The Department placed an over-reliance on the board to meet its obligations under company law and had an over-reliance on trust that the former chief executive was meeting her accounting officer responsibilities. Certain issues relating to the process for drawing down funds by NIEC also highlighted problems.

Nelson McCausland: I want to pick up on the point regarding the accountability arrangements because it is clear that the subsequent review has identified a number of shortcomings to which the Minister has referred.
Will the Minister undertake to give a more detailed account to the Committee in due course of the findings that have emerged from the review; the lessons that have been learned; what changes will be put in place, and whether there are lessons for other Departments that deal with arm’s-length companies? Is it possible to get some indication of the probable timescale in which there might be some indication of movement on the company’s transfer to DETI and the recovery of money outstanding?

Edwin Poots: Subsequent arrangements that have been put in place are based on the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s recommendations. As Minister, I will engage directly with one of the arm’s-length bodies in an accountability meeting this afternoon in order to ensure personally that I am satisfied with the accountability measures that have been put in place.
I am happy to brief the Committee further on the matter and any others that are outstanding after the debate, should the Committee feel that it is in its interest and that of the Northern Ireland public. Throughout our discussions, however, we must remain cognisant that further investigations on the matter are ongoing and that their outcomes may, in due course, be reported to the police and the Public Prosecution Service. In some respects, I am constrained because although I want to tell the Assembly and the public as much as possible about what happened and how that public money was lost, I do not want to do so in such a way that would impinge upon the forces of law and order taking their due course.

John Dallat: At this juncture, it may be useful to remind Members that although privilege is attached to the House’s proceedings, it is only in respect of any potential action for defamation. In the past, the Speaker has reminded Members that that privilege should be exercised responsibly. I urge Members to bear that caution in mind for the rest of the debate.

Ken Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that timely warning. I hope that I do not stray across any imaginary line.
It gives me great sadness to be present at the debate and to hear about the Events Company, which did so much to restore Northern Ireland’s image and undo, in a constructive way, the damage that was caused during 30 years of terrorism; and to hear that, in that particular instance, the procedures that the Department should have followed to ensure that the Events Company followed the right path in all of those matters were not fully surveyed.
I am particularly concerned by the significant number of creditors who find themselves exposed because of the company’s demise. The matter has caused grave concern among Committee members, who are anxious that people who have outstanding invoices are dealt with as quickly as possible. As I recall from the Minister’s statement, some 6% have not, as yet, been dealt with. Will the Minister assure the House that they will be dealt with as speedily as possible, so that no one will find themselves financially exposed in a manner that was not of their making?
During the debate, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments. Faults may or may not have occurred in the Events Company itself: that will be determined by someone else, somewhere else, in the future. However, there is no doubt that the Department’s role in the situation has been less than flattering. Surely, if the Minister’s Department and others will rely on arm’s-length agencies to carry out certain functions on the community’s behalf, it is incumbent on the parent Department to ensure that it not only covers all of the angles that it should cover, but any that a logical, careful civil servant, departmental official or Minister ought to cover in the public’s interest.

Edwin Poots: As regards the 6% of creditors that are still outstanding, those who provided genuine services and are shown to have acted in good faith with a verifiable contract in place will be paid. I will give that assurance. However, I do not believe that the House or the public want anyone to be paid when that is not the case.
Ultimately, we must be absolutely sure. To have dealt with the issue and paid 94% of creditors is good, although the matter of outstanding individuals with genuine claims should be addressed as quickly as possible.
The Member raised the valid point that the Government and the Departments are heavily reliant on arm’s-length bodies to carry out functions on behalf of the Government. That involves expenditure of large amounts of public moneys, and the case of the Northern Ireland Events Company has brought into stark focus the potential for such arrangements to go wrong. The Northern Ireland Events Company involved fairly modest spending in comparison with other arm’s-length bodies, so that should represent a significant wake-up call to Government about the practices and processes that are in place when arm’s-length bodies conduct affairs on behalf of Government. As Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I am conscious of that. Every other Minister must also be conscious of that, and attention must be paid to that issue.

Pat Ramsey: Notice of the Minister’s statement was received only half an hour before the start of the plenary session. That is not fair to Members, who need to prepare for such statements. The Minister said that he would be happy to come before the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, but the short notice that Members were given of his statement means that he will have to do that, because the Committee will need to examine areas that were not covered during the debate.
The Minister said that the company committed to a contract to hold motocross events in each year up to 2012. How much money was committed, and is the contract still legally binding on the Department? The Minister said that the lion’s share of a sum of money was used to finance motocross events from 2004 onwards. How much was allocated to those events, and how many events or organisations were involved?
I agree with Ken Robinson’s comments. A cloud has been placed over the ability to prepare and advance events in Northern Ireland, which had been done well through the capacity and expertise of the Events Company.
Is the Minister confident that events of the same nature can be delivered? He referred to the major events funds and the events growth fund. How much money is available under those funds, compared with what was available from the Events Company during the same period? All those groups now face a difficulty because the Events Company had a capacity to access private or sponsorship moneys to assist in match funding the events. Is the Minister confident that the same types of events, which have brought international acclaim to Northern Ireland, can be delivered?

Edwin Poots: I will make available in writing to the Member the amount of money that was offered to the motocross events up to 2012. The expenses and the deficit were run up between 2004 and 2007, and were largely, but not exclusively, based on annual motocross events, the running of which the Events Company took responsibility for.
The events budget, which is now managed by the Department, is £1·6 million — the same amount that was available to the Northern Ireland Events Company. That is not decided on the basis of matched funding; in most instances, we would like considerably more than 50% matched funding to come from the events. We seek to ensure that events that are good for Northern Ireland can happen with as little support as possible from the public purse, and that those events can continue to grow.
That is what we are about. We are not about giving out large amounts of money just for the sake of securing events; we are about supporting events that are close to economic viability, when, perhaps, our support might secure their ongoing viability.

Kieran McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his statement, but I must reiterate what my fellow Committee member Pat Ramsey and the Committee Chairperson said about the lack of time that we have been given to read it. First, is the Minister satisfied that sufficient control was exercised by the Department in relation to the Northern Ireland Events Company? Secondly, is the Minister satisfied that the correct people were appointed to the company in the first place, and have appointment procedures changed or been revised since then?

Edwin Poots: In hindsight, no. However, that will also be the case in the future, no matter which regime is in place. Appointments will be made by Government or arm’s-length bodies that will prove not to be the best appointments.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure was responsible for monitoring the Northern Ireland Events Company, and it was not robust enough when carrying out its duties. Criticism of the Department will be extrapolated when the Public Accounts Committee undertakes its work.

Jim Shannon: As we all know, particular events promote, and give status to, the Province, and securing such events was the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Events Company. Nevertheless, no one can deny that that company’s actions have blotted our reputation, and the financial deficit of more than £1·66 million is, in itself, totally unacceptable and particularly worrying. The Northern Ireland Events Company and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure cannot stand blameless for what happened.
The Minister stated that he wants a “comprehensive and authoritative review”. To those Members who made snide remarks, I say that, as soon as the Minister was made aware of the problem, he initiated a full investi­gation. Members know that, and today’s statement to the Assembly is part of that investigation. The Minister deserves great credit for the manner in which he has responded by initiating the investigation and ensuring that all evidence has been brought to the Chamber, and other Members are aware that he responded positively.
Is there any evidence of fraud, will there be further investigations, and has the inquiry that the Minister mentioned earlier unearthed more concerns? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm whether actions have occurred that are contrary to company law and that may warrant further investigation, and what measures have been put in place to ensure that similar problems will not arise again? That is just one question, with a couple of amendments and add-ons.

John Dallat: It is your choice whether to answer, Minister.

Edwin Poots: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thus far, there is no clear, substantive evidence of criminal intent or gain by anyone involved. However — and that is a fairly major “however” — there is sufficient evidence of fraudulent activity to warrant further investigation. As part of any further investigations, the Department must consider whether it can seek to recover moneys that may have been obtained unlawfully or payments that were made on the basis of misrepresentations by certain parties. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to consider those matters.
The independent review also found several irregularities in the company’s financial and payment-related procedures that give cause for concern. Those include: the use of credit cards by certain members of the company’s executive; the procurement of services; company record keeping, including bookkeeping irregularities; unusual, or possibly irregular, payments; the payment of commission to members of staff; and an unauthorised £200,000 overdraft in a bank account that was not disclosed to the Department. Those potentially serious matters require full investigation.

Paul Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister’s statement mentions creditors, an issue that Ken Robinson raised earlier. Perhaps the wording in the statement is incorrect — or perhaps I have read it incorrectly — but it says:
“Those creditors that have not been paid are being investigated by the NIEC, under the direction of the board and in consultation with my Department”.
I read the draft independent review report, and I have listened to the Minister’s comments today. Is he saying that he has confidence in the NIEC investigating the 6% of its creditors who did not receive any payment? The investigation will take place under the direction of the board and in consultation with the Department, but I take it that that was the process that was followed all along, when the company was in operation. Does the Minister have confidence in the NIEC’s ability to carry out that investigation? Go raibh maith agat.

Edwin Poots: The responsibility for what happened lies with the NIEC and its board. Under the circumstances that the Department has arranged, I do have confidence in the NIEC’s ability to deal with those issues. The Department has asked independent financial experts to carry out that investigation on behalf of the NIEC. That work has been overseen by a senior civil servant in the Department, who has spent huge amounts of time with the company and who has been engaged with the independent financial advisers virtually full-time. It is not a case of the matter being dealt with by the NIEC that ran up this particular deficit, as such; rather, the NIEC will be provided with the expertise and help to ensure that the mess with which we have been left can be dealt with professionally and for the public good.

Michelle McIlveen: Has the matter been reported to the police?

Edwin Poots: No clear, substantive evidence of criminal intent or gain by anyone involved has come to light as yet. However, there may be sufficient evidence of fraudulent activity to warrant further investigation. We have consulted the PSNI and have passed the draft report of the independent review of the NIEC to it for its consideration. The report has also been passed to DETI for consideration of possible action under company law, which may have some impact on the company’s directors.

Dominic Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the Minister satisfied that the Department’s responsibilities for monitoring the NIEC were properly carried out, given that months went by without the Department seeking monthly accounts and that it failed to act on other financial information provided to it when it should have done? This disaster could, arguably, have been avoided had the Department carried out its responsibilities properly. Can the Minister assure the House that the report is not an attempt to make a scapegoat of some people in order to exonerate the Department from its responsibilities?

Edwin Poots: I am not seeking to exonerate the Department from the responsibility that should be placed on it. We can certainly identify who played a role in this matter — the accounting officer, the directors and the board members all had a significant role to play. However, the Department also played a significant role, and I am not in denial about that. The Department did not engage robustly enough in the processes in which it was involved. It had evidence that the Northern Ireland Events Company carried out previous work well, but it did not robustly challenge the company’s other engagements. As a consequence of good faith, the situation was allowed to develop.
There were periods when the Department was not quick enough to look at the accounts or to keep on top of everything that was happening in the Northern Ireland Events Company. As a result, we have ended up in this situation. I do not blame the Department for that — the blame lies elsewhere. However, the Department had a role to play in not being robust enough.

Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. In response to a question from Ken Robinson, the Minister spoke about arm’s-length bodies, lessons learned, and, obviously, lessons for the future. I am mindful of that in asking my questions, because I know that the Committee will be more than interested in his response. There are three main questions that the Minister needs to answer for the Assembly — not today, perhaps, but in the future.
First, how was the matter able to go undetected? Reading the Minister’s statement, it looks as though it was detected when representatives from the NI Events Company walked in, put their hands up and said that they had run out of ideas on which to spend money and that they could not go on any longer.
Secondly, where in the Department should the matter have been spotted? In other words, who was responsible, and I do not mean an individual, because this is not about individualising. Where in the system should someone, somewhere along the line have realised that there had to be something wrong with the company, given the way that it was spending its money?
Finally, when should the matter have been spotted? We need a clear answer to that. It should have been spotted, for example, two or three years ago. The investigation should examine the NI Events Company from its inception, because if credit cards were being used wrongly, in order for there to be a proper inquiry, we need to find out when that started and when it ended.
Therefore, if there are to be arm’s-length bodies to run Government — and the Minister has said that there will be — we will at least know how to spot the mistakes.

Edwin Poots: I indicated that the Department needed to be more robust. Perhaps if it had been more robust in its engagement, the matter could have been notified when the first significant deficit was run up, which I think I quoted at £440,000 in, I believe, 2005. If I am incorrect, the figure will have been noted in the Hansard report. Had the monitoring processes been carried through, the Department should have become alert to what was going on at that early stage.
In summer 2006, two whistleblowers came to the Department and drew to its attention matters with which they were not satisfied about the running of the Northern Ireland Events Company. One of those whistleblowers came to me, by arrangement with Ian Paisley Jnr, to bring those matters to my attention, and that person repeated what had been said to civil servants. At that point, I started to seek more information on the Northern Ireland Events Company, to which greater attention was paid. That brought us to the point where, in September, the matter became public knowledge.
It is clear that the Events Company was operating with a considerable faith from the Department. That faith was misplaced. As a consequence, the Department, the Government and the public in Northern Ireland have had their fingers burned. The affair has been very damaging for Northern Ireland, and the steps that we have taken to ensure that genuine creditors are paid and that we are in a position to organise more events is the best that we could have put in place in the circumstances.

Simon Hamilton: The Minister’s revelations are deeply disturbing on a host of levels. In his statement, he said that the board was over-reliant on external auditors. However, when other elements of his statement are examined, not only has £1.6 million gone awry but:
“there were inaccuracies in the accounts; a lack of clarity and understanding of the accounting policies”
And, as he said in response to my colleague Jim Shannon, an overdraft of £200,000 was secreted in another bank account. Did the company’s external auditors give any warning to the board or to the Department that things were going so severely wrong?
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

Edwin Poots: The company’s external accountants prepared annual accounts for each of the three years concerned, and the deficit was reported inadequately in those statements. There are questions about whether the accounting standards, practices and policies adopted by the external accountants were accepted standards, practices and policies in some instances. Indeed, some of those questions could not be answered in the review without having access to the accountants’ working papers, and, on the basis of legal advice, the auditors have refused access to those papers. Such access may have provided answers to some of the questions that have arisen.
The issue is being referred to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which has the power, under companies legislation, to investigate such matters. However, it is a matter of concern that the company got an unqualified clean bill of health from the auditors.

Francie Brolly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We have been focusing on finances and their use, but will the Minister consider initiating a full investigation of the behaviour of everyone in the Events Company, including how contracts were meted out and how events promoters were dealt with? I am aware of one case in which a promoter of one important event is severely aggrieved and feels discriminated against. I am not sure where the discrimination came from, but the promoter is very aggrieved by the treatment received and has suffered serious financial loss as a consequence. I am still dealing with that case.

Edwin Poots: I am aware of similar cases. Ultimately, the Department’s responsibility is to identify the financial loss to the public and how that happened. The Department must also identify whether there is potential to seek redress for the loss or to go to the Public Prosecution Service and bring about an appearance before the courts. Those are all important steps.
Many people will have grievances with the Events Company. I am not sure whether those grievances can ever be satisfied, but we must focus on what is deliverable.

Lord Morrow: My question is similar to that of Dominic Bradley. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement, and for going into such detail. I recognise that there are certain things that he cannot discuss at this stage, but he did say that KPMG estimated the financial deficit to be £1·6 million by 31 March 2008. He went on to say that the deficit has accumulated since 31 March 2005, when it was close to £500,000. What was the deficit at 31 March 2006?
Although the situation did not occur during his time as Minister, I am sure that he shares our concerns that the matter was not been dealt with long before now. When does he envisage a final investigation and completion of the report? It is in the interests of the Assembly and, indeed, the general public that this matter is concluded quickly and to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.

Edwin Poots: There is a running total. Therefore, the figures are available, and I will ascertain them for Lord Morrow.
As I indicated, the deficit was almost entirely related to the motocross events that were organised latterly by the Northern Ireland Events Company. As the situation developed, it seemed that the company was throwing good money after bad. Given the good work that took place over a long period to bring quality events to Northern Ireland, it is sad that the organisation of a small number of events — and the close association of the Northern Ireland Events Company with those events — resulted in so much damage.

Jonathan Craig: The House will be interested to hear that a company of consultants has circulated a flyer boasting that one of its directors is the former chief executive of the Northern Ireland Events Company. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board — with whom the company has recently secured a contract — is listed among its clients. Given those facts, will the Minister inform the House about the role that the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board played in the Northern Ireland Events Company? Given the continuing connection that exists, can Members have any confidence that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board would be able to fulfil the responsibilities of that important role?

Edwin Poots: Mr Alan Clarke was appointed to the Northern Ireland Events Company on 6 June 2002; he is also chief executive of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The role of the directors of the board is in the public domain, and I have reiterated that the board did not carry out its functions to the standards expected. Although I do not want to pre-empt any Public Accounts Committee investigation, I will be interested in the results of such an investigation.
The House will be alarmed that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board would be prepared to engage with a company in which the former chief executive of the Northern Ireland Events Company is a director — particularly given the fact that the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is on the board of that company and has a good knowledge of the situation. Members can draw their own conclusions, but the matter will not go away. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and I will have to consider the issue when then the proposed transfer to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board takes place.

Alastair Ross: I share other Members’ concerns about the deficit of £1·6 million to the public purse. The Minister’s statement suggested that the board might have been unaware of the company’s true financial position. How is that possible?

Edwin Poots: The board appears to have failed to meet the requirements of public accountability as laid out in the management statement, financial memorandum and companies’ legislation. Furthermore, the board appears to have delegated substantial authority to the former chief executive/accounting officer and, indeed, to the former acting chief executive/accounting officer, with a lack of adequate controls, such as the requirement to establish an audit committee and internal audit programme.
The financial controls and procedures were inadequate, and that contributed significantly to the board’s lack of awareness of the developing problems. The board relied on the chief executive, DCAL and external auditors to provide support in those areas. However, the fundamentally weak control environment was the responsibility of the board and the accounting officer under the provisions of the management statement and financial memorandum, and under companies’ legislation.

Executive Committee Business

Mesothelioma, etc., Bill

Consideration Stage

Francie Molloy: One amendment has been tabled. Members will have received a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, which provides details of the amendment. The amendment deals with the powers to make statutory rules. I remind Members who intend to speak that they should address their comments only to the amendment. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points of the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.
Clauses 1 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 (Commencement)

Margaret Ritchie: I beg to move the following amendment: In page 6, line 38, at end insert
“(2) An order under subsection (1) may include such transitional provision or savings as the Department considers necessary or expedient in connection with bringing any provision of the Act into operation.”
Clause 12 allows the provisions of the Bill to be brought into operation by commencement Orders, except clauses 12 and 13, which will come in to operation upon the granting of Royal Assent. This is a technical amend­ment to clause 12 of the Bill, and does not introduce any change in policy. It will enable the Department for Social Development to include, where it is considered necessary or expedient, transitional provision or savings in commencement Orders made under that clause. It will ensure that the Department for Social Development will be able to legislate on the same basis as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under corresponding provisions in the Westminster Bill.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the Minister for her explanation of the amendment. As Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, I will take the opportunity to say a few words about the Bill and the Committee’s scrutiny of it during its Committee Stage.
The overall aim of the Bill is to introduce an integrated system of registration and regulation, as well as super­vision and support, of registered charities. In particular, the Bill will provide a definition of “charity” and “charitable purpose”. It will establish — [Interruption.]
I apologise; I am on the wrong Bill. I will take my seat.

Francie Molloy: I will call you again, Mr Campbell, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development.

Gregory Campbell: I apologise for my mistake, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with the Charities Bill as well as the Mesothelioma, etc., Bill today.
The Committee examined the issue of mesothelioma for some considerable time, and has no objections or issues to raise in connection with the Bill. A considerable volume of representations were made about mesothelioma, but, again, no issues have been raised in connection with the Bill.

Mickey Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I concur with Mr Campbell. In the past two days, however, two queries have come to light in relation to the Bill, which, I am sure, the Minister will be able to deal with briefly. The first was about whether it had to be definitively proven that an individual had contracted mesothelioma in order that compensation could be paid. The second query was about savings, which could be affected by the amendment.
The award of compensation over a certain amount to a person receiving income support or pension credit may have an impact on that person’s future entitlement to benefit. That situation may only affect a small number of people, but it does seem to be a contradiction in terms that a person who receives compensation intended to alleviate suffering in the final period of his or her life because of mesothelioma may, in fact, be caused a degree of stress if their benefits, and those of their dependants, are affected. Go raibh maith agat.

Alban Maginness: Will the Minister assure the House — because it is an important public matter — that the bureaucracy involved in administering the funds will be so limited as to easily facilitate those who are afflicted by that terrible condition and to enable payments to be made easily and in a timely fashion?

Sean Neeson: I welcome the legislation. Almost 10 years ago, the late Mr Robbie Brown from Carrickfergus founded the organisation, Justice for Asbestos Victims. That prompted me, together with the late Mr John Kelly, to propose a debate on the subject in the Assembly.
At around that time, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment set aside a sum to compensate former employees of Harland and Wolff who had contracted the disease while working for that company before privatisation. Will such compensation be affected by the legislation, and, if so, how will it be affected?

Mary Bradley: I welcome the legislation. My question has already been asked, so I will not use up the House’s time by repeating it.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Committee members for their support, I am grateful for it. I am also grateful that, across the Assembly, there has been a positive approach to the legislation.
As I made clear, the amendment is purely technical and does not involve a change of policy. Savings provisions are used for a variety of purposes; for example, to preserve existing law or to make clear that existing rights are not affected by new legislation. Transitional provisions are used to make special provision for the application of the legislation to the circumstances that exist when the legislation comes into operation.
I wish to address the issues that Members raised. Mickey Brady asked about the eligibility test. A simple medical diagnosis by the person’s general practitioner or local doctor is all that is required to prove eligibility.
The lump sum is disregarded for 52 weeks in respect of claims for income support and housing benefit, and it is disregarded indefinitely in respect of state pension credit. Members will recall that when I discussed the legislation at its Second Stage last week, I said that the disease had a long gestation period, and, once diagnosed, sufferers had a short life expectancy. Unfortunately and sadly, that life expectancy is about nine months. If a person happens to live longer than 52 weeks, and his or her GP indicates that that is likely to be the case, the money can be protected by placing it in a trust fund.
I assure Sean Neeson that the lump sum that is guaranteed by the Bill will not affect other forms of compensation. It may be recovered from subsequent compensation; however, that will not affect the claimant per se.
My colleague Mr Maginness raised general issues, and asked me to assure the House that all payments will be made in a timely, ordered and expeditious fashion. I wish to reassure the House, and the general public throughout Northern Ireland, that my Department has geared itself up to implement the Bill on enactment.
It is most important to me, my officials, people who are deeply affected by mesothelioma and their families that bureaucracy must not prevent or hold up the expeditious payment of such bills. The aim of the legislation is to have a simple benefit, paid within weeks of medical diagnosis, and that diagnosis is the sole eligibility requirement. I assure those people who have been in contact with MLAs during the past few days that that is the case.
I will make absolutely sure that that work is carried out upon enactment and implementation of the Bill. Anyone who has been affected by mesothelioma, or who has a family member who has been affected, should contact my officials immediately. That will ensure that cases can be fully investigated and that payments can be made in an expeditious manner to help those affected by this vexatious and sad issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Francie Molloy: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Mesothelioma, etc., Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Charities Bill

Consideration Stage

Francie Molloy: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list.
There are four groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendments No 1 and No 2, which deal with issues relating to the public-benefit test. The second debate will be on amendments No 3, No 42, No 43 and No 44, which deal with the designation of religious charities and other religious matters. The third debate will be on 57 technical amendments. These amendments deal with changes to company law, auditing and accounting matters, and other technical changes, together with the opposition of the Minister, for technical reasons, to clauses 52, 104 and 159. The fourth debate will be on amendments No 38, No 39 and No 40, which deal with the level of financial thresholds applying to charities.
I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the four groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each particular group on which they wish to comment.
Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 (Meaning of “charitable purpose”)

Margaret Ritchie: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 2, line 29, after “belief in” insert “one god or”.
The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:
No 2: In clause 3, page 3, line 41, leave out “disbenefit” and insert “detriment”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

Margaret Ritchie: It is helpful that the 66 amendments are grouped in this way. It should help to ensure a more coherent debate and make the best use of Assembly time. All the amendments that stand in my name have been discussed in detail during the Committee for Social Development’s clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I am pleased that the Committee was able to reach consensus on all 66 amendments, and I thank its Chairperson and members for their diligence and patience in dealing with such a substantial Bill.
There are two amendments in this group, and they relate to the meaning of “charitable purpose” and the “‘public benefit’ test”. Amendment No 1, to clause 2, will allow for a better explanation of the broad definition of “the advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose. Amendment No 2 will replace the word “disbenefit” with “detriment” in clause 3, when determining whether a public benefit has been provided. That amendment should ensure a better understanding of the “public benefit” test. It also reflects the wording used in recent guidance that the Charity Commission for England and Wales issued.

Gregory Campbell: I believe in being far-sighted, but I was probably too far-sighted today. [Laughter.]
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the amendments, which have been helpfully grouped.
I take this opportunity to say a few words about the Bill, and the Committee’s scrutiny of it. The Bill’s overall aim is to introduce an integrated system of registration and regulation, as well as supervision and support of charities. The Bill provides a definition of “charity” and “charitable purpose”. It will also establish a charity commission for Northern Ireland and a charity tribunal for Northern Ireland. It will create a register of charities, provide for a new form of charitable body — the charitable incorporated organisation — and deal with the regulation of charities and public charitable collections.
We need to create a modern legal framework to support and encourage a vibrant and diverse third sector, which plays such an important role in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. It provides vital services, strengthens communities and is often a powerful advocate for the marginalised. For a considerable time, the third sector has called for reform of charity law. It wants registration, regulation, supervision and support of charities. The public also want regulation that will protect them from bogus charities and associated fraudulent or criminal activity. The Committee believes that the Bill will provide all those measures.
The establishment of a charity commission is particularly welcome. The commission will have both an advisory and regulatory role. At all times, it should pay particular attention to its duty to regulate fairly and proportionately. It is of utmost importance that, where possible, bureaucracy be minimised and charities not hindered from carrying out their work because of an unnecessary bureaucratic burden.
The Bill’s Committee Stage commenced on 16 January, and the Committee conducted a detailed scrutiny of it. As a result, several amendments were proposed. The Committee and the departmental officials established from the start a good working relationship, which paid dividends when it came to agreeing amendments. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for agreeing to table the amendments that Committee members proposed. I also wish to put on record the Committee’s thanks and appreciation to all the Committee staff and departmental officials for their commitment and assistance during the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill.
The Committee considered the Bill and related issues at 15 meetings between 31 May 2007 and 1 May 2008. During the Committee Stage, 53 written submissions on the Bill were received, and the Committee took oral evidence from 12 organisations. The Committee is grateful to those who gave oral or written evidence; it is of the utmost importance that, as a legislative Assembly, we take on board the views of those whom new legislation will affect. Listening to the views of those directly involved is essential if we are to develop and introduce better policy.
The Bill also introduces enabling powers to make regulations in a number of areas, including annual statements of accounts, annual reports and annual returns by charities. The Committee looks forward to receiving and scrutinising the policy proposals for those regulations, and it is hoped that our dealings with the Department on forthcoming regulations will be as productive and positive as they have been on the Bill.
The Minister outlined the nature and purpose of the first group of amendments, which relate to public benefits, and I do not intend to cover the same ground. Amendment No 1 is intended to give clarity to the definition of religion. The Committee was content that the definition of religion recognised a variety of faith groups in respect of the advancement of religion. However, it was concerned that the definition, as drafted, did not specifically include a “belief in one god”, although it accepted that it did not preclude it. For the sake of clarity, the Committee decided that the definition of religion should state that it includes a “belief in one god”.
The Committee was also concerned about the use of the word “disbenefit” in relation to the public benefit test, hence amendment No 2. Members accepted that the word “disbenefit” was ambiguous, ill defined and vulnerable to exploitation. The Committee noted that it was not used in the public benefit guidance issued by the Charity Commission for England and Wales — “harm” and “detriment” were used instead. The Committee agreed that clear, unequivocal and accepted language should be used, and recommended that “detriment” replace “disbenefit”.
One important concern was highlighted by consultees about the public-benefit test, and, more specifically, about what constitutes public benefit. In response to that concern, the Committee emphasises the need for benefits that are not tangible or measurable — such as spiritual benefits — to be recognised by the commission in determining whether a charitable purpose is for public benefit. The Committee considered that it was not necessary to table an amendment to that effect. However, it intends to scrutinise carefully the proposed guidelines on public benefit to ensure that spiritual benefits are accepted and recognised by the new charity commission as constituting public benefit. The Committee supports the first group of amendments.

Mickey Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her explanation of the amendments. I will address amendment No 2 and amendment No 3. There was much discussion about the use of “disbenefit”, because it did not make sense to a lot of people — in fact, I had never heard the word before. The Committee decided that “detriment” was a more appropriate word to use in the legislation.
A lot of evidence was taken from religious groups, and there was a misapprehension among those groups that their charitable status would be affected. Amendment No 3 has reassured people. Although it may not satisfy all of the people concerned, it is hoped that it will satisfy the majority of those people who had reservations about the criteria that designated religious charities are expected to meet.
I thank the Committee and everyone else who was involved in the progression of the Bill, because it has been a long and arduous process. The Bill has 186 clauses and nine schedules, so the Committee had a lot of work to do. Go raibh maith agat.

Fred Cobain: I support the Bill and the first group of amendments. The Charities Bill is welcome and necessary. The legislation covering the regulation of charities in Northern Ireland is out of step with that of our British counterparts and with the new charity law that is being introduced in the Republic of Ireland. The Charities Bill will bring Northern Ireland up to speed.
The people of Northern Ireland are generous and supportive of charities, and we have an excellent charity sector that supports some of the most vulnerable people in society and further afield. However, to date, the charity sector has been regulated by a disjointed and often complicated legislative framework that, in many ways, has been ineffectual for the charities and for the public’s confidence in how charities are run. I am pleased, therefore, that the Bill introduces a regulatory framework that, while mirroring many aspects of our British counterparts, is moulded to the distinctive circumstances of Northern Ireland.
As has been stated, the Bill provides for a statutory definition of “charity” and “charitable purposes”, the establishment of the charity commission for Northern Ireland, a new charitable incorporated organisation, a register of charities, and provisions to deal with the regulation of charities and public charitable collections.
One of the main purposes of the Bill is to give the public confidence that charities are legal and that the money that those charities receive is used correctly and has been collected properly. Good regulation is crucial for ensuring that legitimate and successful charities are given the protection and support that they need; consequently, the thrust of the Bill has been widely supported by the charity sector. Equally, we must ensure that unscrupulous people, who, in the past, have used the cover of a charitable label to promote illegal activities and collect money for illegal organisations, no longer have the opportunity to do that. I believe that the Bill represents a necessary and modernising step that will see Northern Ireland join the twenty-first century in respect of charity regulation.
The Committee Stage has proceeded extremely well. I thank the Minister and all those who made representations in an attempt to improve the Bill. As the Minister has clearly outlined, the first group of amendments deals with the definition of “charity” and the issue of a public-benefit test. At present, there is no statutory definition of “charity” in Northern Ireland, although the legal concept has been developed through case law for many years.
Amendment No 1 is intended to clarify that the advancement of a religion involves the “belief in one god”, as well as a belief in more than one god.
The Bill sets out the meaning of “charity” and the meaning of “charitable purpose”. Although most charitable groups have been strongly supportive of that move, the Committee received representation from religious groups and groups representing Churches, who raised concerns about the definition of a religion and the use of the public-benefit test. Therefore, amendment No 2 refers to the public-benefit test in clause 3 of the Bill.
According to the original version of the Bill, if a charity is considered to impose disbenefit on the public, that organisation may not gain charitable status. The Committee considered that the word “disbenefit” was too elusive, and could be used against charities whose benefit to society cannot be measured so tangibly, such as spiritual benefit. By tabling this amendment, the Minister has sought to give more legal clarity and assurance to charities that the work that they do cannot be attacked unnecessarily. The removal of the word “disbenefit” and the introduction of “detriment” will ensure that no legitimate charities are unnecessarily penalised for the work that they carry out. I support amendments Nos 1 and 2.

Alban Maginness: I thank the Minister for her work in respect of the Bill, as well as the Committee for Social Development, whose work was particularly well done, and the staff of that Committee, who worked very well in support of Committee members.
This Bill brings much clarity to the legal concept of charitable purpose. This is a timely reform of our law, which has significantly fallen behind the rest of charity law in both Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Clause 2 includes an exhaustive list describing charitable purposes, which I believe reflects contemporary interests and contemporary charitable objectives.
Amendment No 1, proposing the insertion of “one god or” into clause 2, is not, perhaps, absolutely essential. Nonetheless, representatives of the Presbyterian Church, as well as others, raised the issue that we live in a theistic society, where the concept of there being one God is deeply valued. It is fit and proper, therefore, that that should be reflected in the legislation that will govern charitable purpose, particularly given that many people who are involved in charities are motivated by religious purpose. Therefore, it is fit and proper that that amendment be made, and we are grateful to those religious bodies — in particular, the Presbyterian Church — for bringing that issue to the attention of the Committee and the Assembly.
It is proper that amendment No 2 be passed, because the term “disbenefit” is vague and lacks proper definition; the amendment will bring clarity to clause 3. Although the term “harm” emerged as an alternative during the Committee’s discussions, “detriment” is the most appropriate term and reflects the views of the bodies that gave evidence to the Committee. Those bodies were concerned about the use of the term, “disbenefit”.
As the Chairperson correctly said, the term “disbenefit” jars and does not bring any meaning or feeling to the legislation. In the corresponding legislation in England and Wales, the terms “harm” and “detriment” are used — we should use language that is common to other jurisdictions to make our law easily understandable in the context of modern charity law.
As part of the public-benefit test, which is essential to establishing a charitable purpose, it was proper that the Committee decided that spiritual value is as legitimate a purpose as any of the more tangible charitable purposes. It was important and correct that Church bodies and other organisations stressed that point. When the commission determines public benefit, I hope that it takes seriously the points that were made by the organisations that gave evidence — there is a non-tangible spiritual value that is appreciated by people who live in this jurisdiction, and it should be part and parcel of the determination of charitable purpose.

Margaret Ritchie: I am grateful for Members’ contributions to the debate on the amendments in group 1. As I said earlier, the amendments have been agreed by the Committee and will improve the understanding of the public-benefit test.
I assure the Chairperson, Mr Campbell, and all the members of the Committee that the good working relationship and the communication that was established between the Committee and the Department will continue as we work through the implementation of the Bill, namely with the charity commission. I assure the House that the charity commission will come back with consultation on the terms of the public-benefit test.
The public-benefit test is an important part of the new legislation, and the proposed charity commission will have to consult on its guidance for the application of that test. All charities that register with the charity commission will have to demonstrate that they provide public benefit. However, the vast majority of charities currently registered with HM Revenue and Customs for tax purposes will be able to pass that test.
Mr Cobain discussed the need to have a proper regulatory framework that is in line with what exists in Great Britain. I welcome those supportive comments. My Department has been working with other regulators in Great Britain and in Ireland to ensure the proper regulation of all charities, hence the need for the legislation.
My colleague Mr Maginness raised the issue of spiritual benefit, to which Mr Cobain referred already. I stress that there will be full regulation and full recognition of that issue, and that is why I accepted the Committee’s proposed amendments on the matter. I also had several meetings with various bodies about their particular concerns. I was charged and compelled by their comments.
Amendment No 1 agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (The “public benefit” test)
Amendment No 2 made: In page 3, line 41, leave out “disbenefit” and insert “detriment”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 (Register of charities)

Margaret Ritchie: I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 11, line 15, leave out “and” and insert
“(b) if the charity is a designated religious charity within the meaning of
section 165, a statement to that effect, and”.
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 42: In clause 165, page 133, line 34, after “laid before” insert
“and approved by a resolution of”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 43: In clause 166, page 134, line 15, leave out “10 years” and insert “5 years; and”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 44: In clause 166, page 134, line 16, Leave out paragraph (d). — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

Margaret Ritchie: The above amendments deal with religious issues. My Department and the Committee for Social Development received a considerable number of representations on the issue of designated religious charity status. That status was introduced in clauses 165 and 166 in recognition of the unique governance arrangements that exist in many of our faith-based organisations.
It is intended that those clauses will provide limited exemptions from aspects of the Charities Bill for faith-based charities that meet the criteria for designated religious status. I have listened to the concerns of Committee members, smaller Churches and ethnic minority groups about the proposed criteria that are to be applied. It is recognised that many such organisations also have robust internal governance arrangements. I am pleased that the proposed amendments to the criteria that are to be applied have been agreed with the Committee for Social Development and by the Executive.
Amendment No 3 relates to the registration of charities and will extend to clause 16 to include a separate statement to reflect whether a charity has been granted designated religious status. Amendment No 42 to clause 165 will ensure that any subsequent Order made by the Department to extend exemptions to charities must be approved by resolution of the Assembly. Amendment No 43 will reduce the qualifying criteria for designated religious status in clause 166(3)(c) from 10 years to five years.
That is a reasonable concession that will ensure that new faith-based charities have sufficient time to demonstrate that acceptable governance arrangements are in place.
Amendment No 44 will remove the membership criteria for designated religious status in clause 166(d). That membership criterion previously stood at 1,000 members. However, I accepted that that would disadvantage smaller faith-based organisations. In clause 166, the underlying principle remains that it will be a matter for the charity commission to determine whether designated religious status is appropriate in each case.

Jonathan Craig: As a member of the Committee for Social Development, I welcome the Charities Bill, which will introduce an integrated system of registration and regulation, including control of charitable fund-raising as well as supervision and support of registered charities. It is good that, for the first time, we will have effective regulation and a statutory definition of charities in Northern Ireland.
When considering these amendments — especially amendment No 43, which refers to clause 166(c) — all members of the Committee understood why it was necessary to have a clause that stated that religious organisations had to be established for 10 years before meeting the religious designation criteria. We all understood the principle; nobody wanted a situation in which an organisation could set itself up, claiming to be religious, and could disappear overnight with people’s money. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland has a history of that happening.
All Committee members clearly understood why a period of time was included in that clause, but we felt that a decade was too long for some organisations and Churches to be established before meeting the religious designation criteria. We suggested that five years was a more suitable period of time. I thank the Committee and the Minister for coming to an agreement on the five-year period, which we all believe is much more reasonable.
That five-year period will still protect the public, because I do not believe that an illegal organisation would set itself up for five years, call itself a religious organisation or Church, and disappear with people’s money; most unscrupulous people do not have that sort of patience.
The Committee was bemused when clause 166(d) was considered. It stated that a Church must have 1,000 members before it meets the religious designation criteria. Perhaps I am bemused because I am a third-generation Baptist who was brought up in a small Church that fiercely protects its independence as a denomination.
When I mentioned independent and congregation-based Churches, many Committee members were bewildered because they were not brought up in that type of background. Northern Ireland has hundreds — if not thousands — of independent Churches, and few, if any, would have met that criterion of having 1,000 congregation members. Unfortunately, that would have automatically excluded those Churches from religious designation protection.
Once the arguments were clearly put to Committee members, not only did they accept them but members asked many of the independent Churches to make their views known, for which I thank the members. Many independent Churches went to the effort and bother of submitting their views to the Committee, for which they are to be thanked. Those views gave the Committee and the Minister a better understanding of the organisations’ perspective on the issue.
I thank the Committee for accepting those arguments and, ultimately, I thank the Minister for accepting them through the Committee. Furthermore, I thank her for the removal of the denominational number requirement. The proposed charities commission will make the decision on a church-by-church basis, and I accept that. Many churches would have been discriminated against, had that amendment not been accepted. I accept and endorse the amendments.

Alban Maginness: If anyone wants to see the value of the Committee system working in the Assembly, I refer them to the second group of amendments. That reflects the sympathy and concern given to the groups that attended the Committee to give evidence on the issue of designated religious charity status. The deep concerns of those groups were felt by the Committee and, as a result, the Committee was so concerned that it made it plain to the Department and the Minister that amendments were necessary.
Mr Craig detailed the concerns expressed by independent Church groups. It was appropriate for the Committee to take those concerns on board, and it did so by reducing the 10 years to five years, and by removing the necessity for 1,000 members as a criterion for achieving designated religious charitable status. That, of course, is not to say that the Committee did not have thorough discussion on the matter: it did. However, it reached a consensus, and that is important.
The Church groups that had problems must feel satisfied that they not only had the opportunity to make their points, but that their points were considered thoroughly, and taken on board by the Committee, the Department and the Minister, and, I hope, by the Assembly today.

Anna Lo: I endorse what the previous two Members have said on this group of amendments, and I support the amendments. I was one of the Committee members who advocated a change in clause 165.
I particularly thank the Minister for her understanding, for giving time to meet ethnic minority communities, and for asking her staff to meet those groups. On behalf of the ethnic minority community sector, I thank and congratulate the Minister on agreeing to make the amendments. When the ethnic minority sector first heard about the criterion for 1,000 members, they felt that it would be totally discriminatory to them. Those small faith groups will, in their nature, remain very small and will never meet a criterion of 1,000 members. They would have been barred for ever from obtaining the designated religious status. They understood that to get that designated religious status exempted them from only a few clauses; however, to them it was a matter of principle. Why should they, as religious faith groups, be barred from obtaining charitable status?
Any group that is founded on faith or religion wants to receive designated religious charity status.
The ethnic-minority sector viewed the criterion for a group to have been established for at least 10 years before acquiring religious status as extremely difficult to meet and disadvantageous, particularly to newer immigrants to Northern Ireland. I am extremely pleased that the 10-year period has been reduced to a more reasonable five years and that the requirement for 1,000 members has been removed from the Bill.
I support the amendment, and I thank the Minister, the staff and the Committee members, who also support the amendment.

Michelle McIlveen: I echo my colleague Mr Craig in thanking the Minister for tabling the amendments to clauses 16, 165 and 166, and I fully support their inclusion in the Bill. The clauses vexed both Committee members and a wide variety of congregations and, needless to say, caused a certain amount of confusion and concern. It is important that the register of charities clearly identifies whether a charity has designated religious charity status, and the insertion of clause 16(4)(b) helps to draw attention to that distinction.
Northern Ireland is peculiar in the number and size of its religious denominations. I welcome the reduction of the 10-year requirement to five years. I also welcome the removal of the requirement for 1,000 members because, as the Minister said, that may have caused disadvantage to some. I am happy to support the amendments.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank all Members for contributing to the debate and raising questions and issues on the second group of amendments. Those amendments arose out of representations from faith-based organisations during the Committee’s Consideration Stage, and I was content to table them.
I want to make it clear that any applications for designated religious charity status will be a matter for the new charity commission to consider, but only after a faith-based charity has been registered. The commission will require assurance that charities seeking the exemption have the appropriate governance arrangements in place. Any faith-based organisation will still be able to register as a charity without seeking designated religious status, which is neither a requirement nor automatically granted.
I welcome Mr Craig’s supportive comments, and I assure him that the charity commission will be diligent in protecting legitimate charities and the public from criminal activity. I place that assurance on the record while on the Floor of the House.
My officials and I met several of the main and minority Churches to discuss the criteria for designated religious status. I listened to their concerns and to those of the Committee, and I am pleased to have accepted the amendment. I found meeting all those Church represent­atives a valuable and enriching experience, because it provided me with information of which I had hitherto been unaware and that I was pleased to receive.
Anna Lo talked about minority faith and ethnic groups, and I am aware of the increasingly important role that they play in society, particularly over the past number of years. I was pleased to table the amendment.
My colleague Alban Maginness made a largely political point, but he also underscored the value of the Committee process and the benefit of positive engagement with the smaller Churches. The fundamental value of the Committee process is in ensuring members’ full participation in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and their full engagement with my officials in understanding, commenting on and providing reasoned amendments to, the legislation.
I agree that it was a very worthwhile and necessary process, and we have seen the benefits of it in the amendments tabled. It demonstrates very clearly to me, and I am sure to all Members of the House, that democracy is working in Northern Ireland and working well for all of the people.
Amendment No 3 agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 17 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 (Application cy-près of gifts of donors unknown or disclaiming)

Francie Molloy: We now come to the third group of amendments for debate. The lead amendment is amendment No 4, with which it will be convenient to debate the other 56 technical amendments in the group. The group also includes the Minister’s opposition to clauses 52, 104 and 159 stand part of the Bill.
I call the Minister for Social Development, Ms Margaret Ritchie, to move amendment No 4 and explain the other amendments and the opposition to clauses in the group.

Margaret Ritchie: I beg to move amendment No 4: In page 20, line 39, leave out
“except in so far as the context otherwise requires”.
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 5: In clause 32, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (10). — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 6: In clause 45, page 37, line 29, after “Act 1988 (c. 1)” insert
“or Part 10 of the Income Tax Act 2007”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 7: In clause 45, page 37, line 36, after “Act 1988” insert
“or Part 10 of the Income Tax Act 2007”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 8: In clause 46, page 38, line 29, at end insert
“(6) In the case of a charity that is a company, an order under this section may authorise an act notwithstanding that it involves the breach of a duty imposed on a director of the company under Chapter 2 of Part 10 of the Companies Act
2006 (general duties of directors).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 52: The Member listed below gives notice of her intention to oppose the Question that clause 52 stand part of the Bill. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 9: In clause 57, page 46, line 30, leave out “recalled” and insert “revoked”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 10: In clause 57, page 47, line 2, leave out
“expenses against a charity, award expenses”
and insert
“costs against a charity, award costs”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 11: In clause 66, page 54, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
“(a) is eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46); or”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 12: In clause 66, page 55, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“who is—
(a) a member of one of the bodies listed in subsection (4A); or
(b) a Fellow of the Association of Charity Independent Examiners.
(4A) The bodies referred to in subsection (4)(a) are —
(a) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
(b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
(c) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;
(d) the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;
(e) the Association of Authorised Public Accountants;
(f) the Association of Accounting Technicians;
(g) the Association of International Accountants;
(h) the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;
(i) the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators;
(j) the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 13: In clause 66, page 56, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert
“(b) amend subsection (4) or (4A) by adding or removing a body to or from the list in that subsection or by varying any entry for the time being included in that list.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 14: In clause 66, page 56, line 9, leave out subsection (10) and insert
“(10) Nothing in this section applies in relation to the accounts of a charity for a financial year if those accounts are required to be audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 15: In clause 67, page 56, line 17, at end insert
“or
(iii) the accounts so prepared under section 394 of the Companies Act 2006 (duty to prepare individual accounts),”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 16: In clause 69, page 58, line 23, leave out from “Part 8” to end of line 25 and insert
“Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46), together with —
(a) where the accounts of the charity for that year have been audited under Part 16 of that Act, a copy of the report made by the auditor on those accounts;
(b) where the accounts of the charity for that year have been audited under section 66, a copy of the report made by the auditor on those accounts;
(c) where the accounts of the charity for that year have been examined under that section, a copy of the report made by the person carrying out the examination.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 17: In clause 70, page 59, line 16, leave out
“Part 8 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (NI 6)”,
and insert
“Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 18: In clause 70, page 59, line 20, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) and insert
“(ii) they have been examined by an independent examiner under section 66(3)(a); or
(iii) they relate to a year in respect of which the company is exempt from audit under Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 and neither section 66(2) nor section 66(3) applied to them.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 19: In clause 92, page 72, line 8, leave out
“Article 675 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (NI 6)”
and insert
“section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 20: In clause 92, page 72, line 10, leave out “Article 675” and insert “section 1157”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 21: In clause 93, page 72, line 14, leave out
“Article 675 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“Section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 22: In clause 93, page 72, line 20, leave out
“Article 675 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 23: Leave out clause 99 and insert
“Consent of Commission required for approval etc by members of charitable companies
99. — (1) Where a company is a charity —
(a) any approval given by the members of the company under any provision of Chapter 4 of Part 10 of the Companies Act 2006 (transactions with directors requiring approval by members) listed in subsection (2), and
(b) any affirmation given by members of the company under section 196 or 214 of that Act (affirmation of unapproved property transactions and loans),
is ineffective without the prior written consent of the Commission.
(2) The provisions are —
(a) section 188 (directors’ long-term service contracts);
(b) section 190 (substantial property transactions with directors etc);
(c) section 197, 198 or 200 (loans and quasi-loans to directors etc);
(d) section 201 (credit transactions for benefit of directors etc);
(e) section 203 (related arrangements);
(f) section 217 (payments to directors for loss of office);
(g) section 218 (payments to directors for loss of office: transfer of undertaking etc).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 24: After clause 99 insert
“Consent of Commission required for certain acts of charitable company
99A. — (1) A company that is a charity may not do an act to which this section applies without the prior written consent of the Commission.
(2) This section applies to an act that —
(a) does not require approval under a listed provision of Chapter 4 of Part 10 of the Companies Act 2006 (transactions with directors) by the members of the company, but
(b) would require such approval but for an exemption in the provision in question that disapplies the need for approval on the part of the members of a body corporate which is a wholly owned subsidiary of another body corporate.
(3) The reference to a listed provision is a reference to a provision listed in section 99(2).
(4) If a company acts in contravention of this section, the exemption referred to in subsection (2)(b) shall be treated as of no effect in relation to the act.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 25: Leave out clause 100 and insert
“Requirement to disclose charitable status
100. — (1) Where a company is a charity and its name does not include the word ‘charity’ or ‘charitable’, the fact that the company is a charity must be stated in legible characters—
(a) in every location, and in every description of document or communication, in which it is required by regulations under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) to state its registered name, and
(b) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the company.
(2) In subsection (1)(b) ‘conveyance’ means any instrument creating, transferring, varying or extinguishing an interest in land.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 26: Leave out clause 101 and insert
“Civil consequences of failure to make required disclosure
101. — (1) This section applies to any legal proceedings brought by a company to which section 100 applies to enforce a right arising out of a contract or conveyance in connection with which there was a failure to comply with that section.
(2) The proceedings shall be dismissed if the defendant to the proceedings (“D”) shows —
(a) that D has a claim against the claimant arising out of the contract or conveyance that D has been unable to pursue by reason of the failure to comply with section 100, or
(b) that D has suffered some financial loss in connection with the contract or conveyance by reason of the failure to comply with that section, unless the court before which the proceedings are brought is satisfied that it is just and equitable to permit the proceedings to continue.
(3) This section does not affect the right of any person to enforce such rights as that person may have against another in any proceedings brought by that person.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 27: After clause 101 insert
“Criminal consequences of failure to make required disclosure
101A. — (1) Where a company fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 100, an offence is committed by —
(a) the company, and
(b) every officer of the company who is in default.
(2) For this purpose a shadow director of the company is treated as an officer of the company if the failure is to comply with section 100(1)(a) and that person would be treated as an officer of the company for the purposes of the corresponding requirement of regulations under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).
(3) A person guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as in section 84 of the Companies Act 2006 (criminal consequences of failure to disclose company’s registered name).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 28: In clause 102, page 78, line 3, Leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“an auditor of a charitable company appointed under Chapter 2 of Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) (appointment of auditors)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 29: In clause 103, page 78, line 16, after “condition and” insert “relevant”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 30: In clause 103, page 78, line 18, leave out from “company auditor” to the end of line 19 and insert
“statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 31: In clause 103, page 78, line 19, at end insert
“(1A) “Relevant accounts” means accounts required to be audited under Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 104: The Member listed below gives notice of her intention to oppose the Question that clause 104 stand part of the Bill. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 32: In clause 107, page 80, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert
“(1) The name of a CIO must appear in legible characters —
(a) in every location, and in every description of document or communication, in which a charitable company would be required by regulations under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) to state its registered name; and
(b) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the CIO.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 33: In clause 107, page 80, line 10, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsection (1)(b)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 34: In clause 107, page 80, line 17, leave out “documents” and insert
“locations, documents, communications and conveyances”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 35: After clause 107 insert
“Civil consequences of failure to disclose name and status
107A. — (1) This section applies to any legal proceedings brought by a CIO to enforce a right arising out of a contract or conveyance in connection with which there was a failure to comply with section 107.
(2) The proceedings shall be dismissed if the defendant to the proceedings (“D”) shows —
(a) that D has a claim against the CIO arising out of the contract or conveyance that D has been unable to pursue by reason of the failure to comply with section 107, or
(b) that D has suffered some financial loss in connection with the contract or conveyance by reason of the failure to comply with that section, unless the court before which the proceedings are brought is satisfied that it is just and equitable to permit the proceedings to continue.
(3) This section does not affect the right of any person to enforce such rights as that person may have against another in any proceedings brought by that person.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 36: In clause 108, page 80, line 19, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert
“(1) In the case of failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 107 an offence is committed by —
(a) every charity trustee of the CIO who is in default, and
(b) any other person who on the CIO’s behalf —
(i) signs or authorises the signing of the offending document, communication or conveyance, or
(ii) otherwise commits or authorises the offending act or omission.
(1A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) to a charity trustee being ‘in default’, and the reference in subsection (2) to a daily default fine, have the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see sections 1121 to 1123 and 1125 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 37: In clause 114, page 85, line 8, leave out
“Articles 51 to 53 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (NI 17)”
and insert
“sections 53 to 55 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 41: In clause 138, page 105, line 11, leave out “benevolent or philanthropic”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 159: The Member listed below gives notice of her intention to oppose the Question that clause 159 stand part of the Bill. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 45: In clause 180, page 140, line 22, leave out
“except in so far as the context otherwise requires”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 46: In clause 180, page 140, line 38, leave out
“Article 231 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“section 390 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 47: In clause 180, page 141, line 29, leave out
“except in so far as the context otherwise requires”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 48: In schedule 3, page 155, leave out lines 33 to 45. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 49: In schedule 6, page 165, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert
“(2) A charity is a ‘parent charity’ if it is (or is to be treated as) a parent undertaking in relation to one or more other undertakings in accordance with the provisions of section 1162 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Companies Act 2006 (c.46).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 50: In schedule 6, page 166, line 5, leave out
“Article 267(1) of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“section 1161(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 51: In schedule 6, page 166, line 13, after “section 64(1)” insert
“or, as the case may be, section 386 of the Companies Act 2006 (duty to keep accounting records)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 52: In schedule 6, page 166, line 18, after “section 64(1)” insert
“or section 386 of the Companies Act 2006”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 53: In schedule 6, page 166, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert
“(1) This paragraph applies in relation to a financial year of a charity if —
(a) the charity is a parent charity at the end of that year; and
(b) (where it is a company) it is not required to prepare consolidated accounts for that year under section 399 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) (duty to prepare group accounts), whether or not such accounts are in fact prepared.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 54: In schedule 6, page 167, line 7, after “parent charity” insert
“(other than a parent charity which is a company)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 55: In schedule 6, page 167, line 12, at end insert
“(6A) If the requirement in sub-paragraph (2) applies to the charity trustees of a parent charity in relation to a financial year and the charity is a company, that requirement so applies in addition to the requirement in section 394 of the Companies Act 2006 (duty to prepare individual accounts).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 56: In schedule 6, page 167, line 36, at end insert
“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), section 64 applies as if subsection (5) of that section were omitted.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 57: In schedule 6, page 168, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (7) and insert
“(7) If this paragraph applies in relation to a financial year of a parent charity by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) —
(a) subject to head (b), the appropriate audit provision shall apply in relation to the parent charity’s own accounts for that year (whether or not it would otherwise so apply);
(b) where the parent charity is a company and its own accounts for that year are not required to be audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46), section 66(2) shall apply in relation to those accounts (whether or not it would otherwise so apply).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 58: In schedule 6, page 168, line 34, leave out “section 66(2)” and insert” —
(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b), section 66(2);
(b) if the parent charity is a company, section 66(2) or Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (as the case may be).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 59: In schedule 6, page 168, leave out lines 42 and 43. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 60: In schedule 6, page 169, line 38, leave out
“Article 397A of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (NI 6)”
and insert
“section 499 or 500 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 61: In schedule 8, page 176, line 7, at end insert
“The Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (NI 14)
2A. In Article 9 (grant of representation to trust corporation) in paragraph (4)(a) after ‘High Court’ insert ‘or the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 62: In schedule 8, page 176, leave out lines 22 to 29. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 63: In schedule 8, page 177, line 21, at end insert
“The Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (NI 1)
12. In Schedule 3 (disclosure for facilitating discharge of functions by other supervising authorities) —
(a) in the entry relating to the Department, omit the words ‘the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (c. 33)’; and
(b) at the end add —
‘The Charity Commission for Functions under the Charities Act Northern Ireland. (Northern Ireland) 2008.’.
The Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
13. — (1) In section 21(2)(b) for ‘Article 9 of the Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2048 (N.I.19))’ substitute ‘section 97 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(2) In section 31(4)(b) for ‘Article 9 of the Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2048 (N.I.19))’ substitute ‘section 97 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(3) In section 1140(2)(c)(ii) after ‘Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)’ insert ‘or section 33 of Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(4) In section 1154(1)(b) after ‘Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)’ insert ‘or section 33 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(5) In section 1154(2) after paragraph (b) insert —
‘(bb) in the case of appointment of a receiver or manager under section 33 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland;’.
(6) In Schedule 1, in paragraph 6(4) after ‘Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)’ insert ‘section 44 or 45 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 64: In schedule 9, page 178, leave out lines 11 to 13. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 65: In schedule 9, page 178, line 16, at end insert
‘The Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (NI 1).
In Schedule 3, in the entry relating to the Department, the words ‘the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964’.”
— [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 66: In the long title, leave out
“to make provision about the funding of such institutions;”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

Margaret Ritchie: The amendments in this group are almost entirely of a very technical nature, and none in any way undermines the policy intention of the Bill; to provide for proper regulation of the charitable sector. The proposed technical amendments fall into three distinct categories. The first category will ensure that parity is maintained following very recent changes to charity and company law in Great Britain. The second category will correct a number of drafting errors in the Bill, and the final category will update some statutory references.
I do not intend to take up Assembly time by providing detailed explanation of those technical amendments. That information was provided to the members of the Committee for Social Development, and I am grateful to them for agreeing to the amendments.
In addition to the technical amendments, this group contains three clauses that I wish to oppose in the Bill. Some issues came to light during the Committee Stage of the Bill, and it was agreed that those clauses should not stand as part of the Bill. Clause 52 contains provision that the Charity Commission may order taxation of a solicitor’s bill of costs for business conducted on behalf of a charity. Advice was received from the Office of Legislative Counsel that that clause duplicated provision contained in the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, and is therefore unnecessary.
Clause 104 relates to the annual audit or examination of accounts of charitable companies. That raises a technical issue arising from the enactment of the Companies Act 2006, and the reference to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 in the clause is no longer appropriate.
Clause 159 relates to the power of my Department to give financial assistance to charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institutions. It is proposed to remove that clause from the Bill, on the basis that it duplicates provision contained in the Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
For those reasons, I request that Members oppose clauses 52, 104 and 159 and support the other technical amendments to the Bill.

David Hilditch: I thank the Minister for her explanation of the amendments and her reasons for opposing certain clauses in the Bill. The vast majority of the technical amendments are necessary to reflect the recent changes that have been made to company law.
The others simply correct minor typographical or drafting errors in the Bill. It is important to note that they do not have any policy impact on the operation of the charity commission. The Committee supports fully the amendments and the Minister’s proposal to remove certain clauses from the Bill.

Margaret Ritchie: I am grateful for Mr Hilditch’s contribution on those technical amendments. As I made it clear earlier, they do not in any way dilute the overall policy directive to provide for effective and proportionate regulation of the charitable sector in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No 4 agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 28 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 (Further powers to make schemes or alter application of charitable property)
Amendment No 5 made: In page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (10). — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 (Meaning of “Scottish recognised body” and “England and Wales charity” in sections 43 and 44)
Amendment No 6 made: In page 37, line 29, after “Act 1988 (c. 1)” insert
“or Part 10 of the Income Tax Act 2007”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 7 made: In page 37, line 36, after “Act 1988” insert
“or Part 10 of the Income Tax Act 2007”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46 (Power to authorise dealings with charity property, etc.)
Amendment No 8 made: In page 38, line 29, at end insert
“(6) In the case of a charity that is a company, an order under this section may authorise an act notwithstanding that it involves the breach of a duty imposed on a director of the company under Chapter 2 of Part 10 of the Companies Act 2006 (general duties of directors).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 47 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 disagreed to.
Clauses 53 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 (Power in relation to certain English, Welsh and Scottish charities)
Amendment No 9 made: In page 46, line 30, leave out “recalled” and insert “revoked”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 10 made: In page 47, line 2, leave out
“expenses against a charity, award expenses”
and insert
“costs against a charity, award costs”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 58 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66 (Annual audit or examination of charity accounts)
Amendment No 11 made: In page 54, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
“(a) is eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor under Part 42 of the
Companies Act 2006 (c. 46); or”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 12 made: In page 55, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“who is—
(a) a member of one of the bodies listed in subsection (4A); or
(b) a Fellow of the Association of Charity Independent Examiners.
(4A) The bodies referred to in subsection (4)(a) are —
(a) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
(b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
(c) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;
(d) the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;
(e) the Association of Authorised Public Accountants;
(f) the Association of Accounting Technicians;
(g) the Association of International Accountants;
(h) the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;
(i) the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators;
(j) the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 13 made: In page 56, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert
“(b) amend subsection (4) or (4A) by adding or removing a body to or from the list in that subsection or by varying any entry for the time being included in that list.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 14 made: In page 56, line 9, leave out subsection (10) and insert
“(10) Nothing in this section applies in relation to the accounts of a charity for a financial year if those accounts are required to be audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67 (Supplementary provisions relating to audits, etc.)
Amendment No 15 made: In page 56, line 17, at end insert
“or
“(iii) the accounts so prepared under section 394 of the Companies Act 2006
(duty to prepare individual accounts),”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 (Annual reports)
Amendment No 16 made: In page 58, line 23, leave out from “Part 8” to end of line 25 and insert
“Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46), together with—
(a) where the accounts of the charity for that year have been audited under Part 16 of that Act, a copy of the report made by the auditor on those accounts;
(b) where the accounts of the charity for that year have been audited under section 66, a copy of the report made by the auditor on those accounts;
(c) where the accounts of the charity for that year have been examined under that section, a copy of the report made by the person carrying out the examination.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70 (Public inspection of annual reports, etc.)
Amendment No 17 made: In page 59, line 16, leave out
“Part 8 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (NI 6)”
and insert
“Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 18 made: In page 59, line 20, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) and insert
“(ii) they have been examined by an independent examiner under section
66(3)(a); or
(iii) they relate to a year in respect of which the company is exempt from audit under Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 and neither section 66(2) nor section 66(3) applied to them.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92 (Power to relieve trustees, auditors, etc. from liability for breach of trust or duty)
Amendment No 19 made: In page 72, line 8, leave out
“Article 675 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (NI 6)”
and insert
“section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 20 made: In page 72, line 10, leave out “Article 675” and insert “section 1157”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 92, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93 (Court’s power to grant relief to apply to all auditors, etc. of charities which are not companies)
Amendment No 21 made: In page 72, line 14, leave out
“Article 675 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“Section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 22 made: In page 72, line 20, leave out
“Article 675 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 94 to 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99 (Requirement of consent of Commission to certain acts)
Amendment No 23 made: Leave out clause 99 and insert
“Consent of Commission required for approval etc by members of charitable companies
99. — (1) Where a company is a charity —
(a) any approval given by the members of the company under any provision
of Chapter 4 of Part 10 of the Companies Act 2006 (transactions with directors requiring approval by members) listed in subsection (2), and
(b) any affirmation given by members of the company under section 196 or
214 of that Act (affirmation of unapproved property transactions and loans), is ineffective without the prior written consent of the Commission.
(2) The provisions are —
(a) section 188 (directors’ long-term service contracts);
(b) section 190 (substantial property transactions with directors etc);
(c) section 197, 198 or 200 (loans and quasi-loans to directors etc);
(d) section 201 (credit transactions for benefit of directors etc);
(e) section 203 (related arrangements);
(f) section 217 (payments to directors for loss of office);
(g) section 218 (payments to directors for loss of office: transfer of undertaking etc).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 24 made: After clause 99 insert
“Consent of Commission required for certain acts of charitable company
99A. — (1) A company that is a charity may not do an act to which this section applies without the prior written consent of the Commission.
(2) This section applies to an act that —
(a) does not require approval under a listed provision of Chapter 4 of Part 10 of the Companies Act 2006 (transactions with directors) by the members of the company, but
(b) would require such approval but for an exemption in the provision in question that disapplies the need for approval on the part of the members of a body corporate which is a wholly owned subsidiary of another body corporate.
(3) The reference to a listed provision is a reference to a provision listed in section 99(2).
(4) If a company acts in contravention of this section, the exemption referred to in subsection (2)(b) shall be treated as of no effect in relation to the act.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 99, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100 (Name to appear on correspondence, etc.)
Amendment No 25 made: Leave out clause 100 and insert
“Requirement to disclose charitable status
100. — (1) Where a company is a charity and its name does not include the word “charity” or “charitable”, the fact that the company is a charity must be stated in legible characters —
(a) in every location, and in every description of document or communication, in which it is required by regulations under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) to state its registered name, and
(b) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the company.
(2) In subsection (1)(b) “conveyance” means any instrument creating, transferring, varying or extinguishing an interest in land.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 100, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 101 (Status to appear on correspondence, etc.)
Amendment No 26 made: Leave out clause 101 and insert
“Civil consequences of failure to make required disclosure
101. — (1) This section applies to any legal proceedings brought by a company to which section 100 applies to enforce a right arising out of a contract or conveyance in connection with which there was a failure to comply with that section.
(2) The proceedings shall be dismissed if the defendant to the proceedings
(“D”) shows —
(a) that D has a claim against the claimant arising out of the contract or conveyance that D has been unable to pursue by reason of the failure to comply with section 100, or
(b) that D has suffered some financial loss in connection with the contract or conveyance by reason of the failure to comply with that section, unless the court before which the proceedings are brought is satisfied that it is just and equitable to permit the proceedings to continue.
(3) This section does not effect the right of any person to enforce such rights as that person may have against another in any proceedings brought by that person.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 27 made: After clause 101 insert
“Criminal consequences of failure to make required disclosure
101A. — (1) Where a company fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with
section 100, an offence is committed by —
(a) the company, and
(b) every officer of the company who is in default.
(2) For this purpose a shadow director of the company is treated as an officer of the company if the failure is to comply with section 100(1)(a) and that person would be treated as an officer of the company for the purposes of the corresponding requirement of regulations under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).
(3) A person guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as in section 84 of the Companies Act 2006 (criminal consequences of failure to disclose company’s registered name).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102 (Duty of charity’s auditors, etc. to report matters to Commission)
Amendment No 28 made: In page 78, line 3, Leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“an auditor of a charitable company appointed under Chapter 2 of Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) (appointment of auditors)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 102, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103 (Investigation of accounts)
Amendment No 29 made: In page 78, line 16, after “condition and” insert “relevant”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 30 made: In page 78, line 18, leave out from “company auditor” to the end of line 19 and insert
“statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 31 made: In page 78, line 19, at end insert
“(1A) “Relevant accounts” means accounts required to be audited under Part
16 of the Companies Act 2006.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 103, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104 disagreed to.
Clauses 105 and 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107 (Name and status)
Amendment No 32 made: In page 80, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert
“(1) The name of a CIO must appear in legible characters —
(a) in every location, and in every description of document or communication, in which a charitable company would be required by regulations under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) to state its registered name; and
(b) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the CIO.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 33 made: In page 80, line 10, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsection (1)(b)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 34 made: In page 80, line 17, leave out “documents” and insert
“locations, documents, communications and conveyances”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 35 made: After clause 107 insert
“Civil consequences of failure to disclose name and status
107A. — (1) This section applies to any legal proceedings brought by a CIO to enforce a right arising out of a contract or conveyance in connection with which there was a failure to comply with section 107.
(2) The proceedings shall be dismissed if the defendant to the proceedings
(“D”) shows —
(a) that D has a claim against the CIO arising out of the contract or conveyance that D has been unable to pursue by reason of the failure to comply with section 107, or
(b) that D has suffered some financial loss in connection with the contract or conveyance by reason of the failure to comply with that section, unless the court before which the proceedings are brought is satisfied that it is just and equitable to permit the proceedings to continue.
(3) This section does not affect the right of any person to enforce such rights as that person may have against another in any proceedings brought by that person.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108 (Offences connected with name and status)
Amendment No 36 made: In page 80, line 19, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert
“(1) In the case of failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 107 an offence is committed by —
(a) every charity trustee of the CIO who is in default, and
(b) any other person who on the CIO’s behalf —
(i) signs or authorises the signing of the offending document, communication or conveyance, or
(ii) otherwise commits or authorises the offending act or omission.
(1A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) to a charity trustee being ‘in default’, and
the reference in subsection (2) to a daily default fine, have the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see sections 1121 to 1123 and 1125 of the Companies Act
2006 (c. 46)).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 109 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114 (Conversion of community interest company)
Amendment No 37 made: In page 85, line 8, leave out
“Articles 51 to 53 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (NI 17)”
and insert
“sections 53 to 55 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 115 to 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122 (Power to transfer all property of unincorporated charity)

Francie Molloy: We now come to the fourth group of amendments for debate. The lead amendment is No 38, with which it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 39 and 40. The amendments deal with the level of financial threshold that applies to charities.

Margaret Ritchie: I beg to move amendment No 38: In page 90, leave out line 7 and insert
“(b) either —
(i) it does not hold any designated land; or
(ii) the total market value of all designated land which it holds does not exceed £90,000; and”.
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 39: In page 91, line 31, leave out “the sum’ and insert “any sum”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
No 40: In page 91, line 39, at end insert
“(13A) In this section “market value”, in relation to any land held by a charity, means —
(a) the market value of the land as recorded in the accounts for the last financial year of the charity, or
(b) if no such value was so recorded, the current market value of the land
as determined on a valuation carried out for the purpose.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
This group of three amendments deals with some financial issues that arise from clause 122, which provides powers for the transfer of property belonging to unincorporated charities. The Charity Commission for England and Wales contacted the Social Development Committee to suggest the introduction of a deregulatory measure that deals with the transfer of designated land. Officials from my Department have discussed this matter with the Office of the Third Sector in London and agreed that there was merit in the suggestion. Amendment Nos 38, 39 and 40 to clause 122 will allow for the transfer of designated land of a low value, where the charity commission is assured that the land will continue to be used for the specific purposes on which it is held in trust.
Amendment No 38 will introduce a low-value threshold of £90,000, which aligns to the threshold for small charities in the Charities Bill and the Companies Act 2006. Amendment No 39 will make a minor change to the wording of the clause and amendment No 40 will provide a definition of market value in relation to any designated land held by a charity. Those amendments provide for a more reasonable approach to this issue, and I am thankful to the Charity Commission for England and Wales for bringing this matter to the attention of myself and the Committee.

David Hilditch: I thank the Minister for her explanation of the amendments. The amendments provide for an exception for the transfer of designated land the value of which does not exceed £90,000. In practical terms, that introduces an exception for the transfer of designated land that has very low value. Designated land will still be subject to special safeguards to ensure that it is used for the specific purposes for which it is held in trust. Therefore the exception will be purely a deregulatory measure and will avoid expensive and time-consuming cy-pres proceedings. I imagine that the amendment will be welcomed by all, particularly the smaller charities. On behalf of the Committee for Social Development, I recommend to the House that the amendments be made to the Bill.

Margaret Ritchie: I am grateful for Mr Hilditch’s contribution to this debate, and the for the Committee’s general patience in dealing with some complex and technical issues.
Amendment No 38 agreed to.
Amendment No 39 made: In page 91, line 31, leave out “the sum’ and insert “any sum”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 40 made: In page 91, line 39, at end insert
“(13A) In this section “market value”, in relation to any land held by a charity, means —
(a) the market value of the land as recorded in the accounts for the last financial year of the charity, or
(b) if no such value was so recorded, the current market value of the land as determined on a valuation carried out for the purpose.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 122, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 123 to 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 134 (Restrictions on conducting door to door collections)

Francie Molloy: No amendments have been tabled to clause 134, but I have received notice that a Member wishes to speak on clause 134.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anna Lo: I have received correspondence from the Association of Charity Shops — as, I believe, have other MLAs — expressing concerns about clauses 134 and 142, and, in particular, about permits. After talking to the association and to the Committee Clerk, I did not feel it necessary to propose an amendment, although that was the wish of the association. Will the Minister give an assurance that such permits will be open-ended and apply to multiple dates, so that charities will not be overburdened by having to seek a permit each time a collection is sought?

David Hilditch: As Ms Lo said, the Association of Charity Shops contacted all Members with regard to possible amendments to the Bill. The association’s main concern relates to the permitting requirements. Although I have not seen the proposed amendments that were sent to selected MLAs, I imagine that they are not far off the proposed amendments that were submitted to the Committee during Committee Stage. I understand from media reports yesterday that the British Heart Foundation has expressed similar concerns.

Jim Shannon: I am not sure if I was one of those lucky ones who got the email from the Association of Charity Shops, but I am sure that there are many others in the Chamber who received it.
Charity shops feel that it is unfair to ask for a permit system because house-to-house collections are clearly for the charities themselves. For some charities, house-to-house collections provide as much as 80% of their income. Has consideration been given to that concern, and to the fact that professional fundraisers have to make specific statements about what they do with the money that they collect and for whom it is intended?

David Hilditch: The association got in touch with the Committee during evidence-gathering sessions in February. Further evidence was presented to the Committee in April. The Committee considered the association’s concerns, favourable responses that were received on this issue during the consultation period, and the views of the Department. Hopefully, in the next few sentences, and perhaps also through the Minister, further assurance will be given with regard to those issues.
The association wants charity shops to be exempt from permit requirements. The Committee gave full consideration to the relevant clauses and was content that there was enough flexibility around the issue of permits that an amendment to the Bill was not warranted. A charity will be able to apply for a permit once a year to conduct collections every day of the year. The task of applying for a yearly blanket permit is not overly onerous. It will be up to a particular charity to discuss such matters with the commission when it is established, and I hope that the commission will take a pragmatic approach when dealing with this issue.
This legislation is designed not just to regulate and support charities; but to protect the public from bogus charities and criminal activity. Throughout its consider­ation of the Bill, the Committee was conscious of minimising bureaucracy. It is a matter of striking the right balance between regulation and bureaucracy. The Committee firmly believes that the right balance has been achieved.
The association also raised concerns about the requirement for door-to-door collectors to inform the public who will benefit from the collection, and to provide details on remuneration. The association felt that that was unworkable. The Committee carefully considered that point, and agreed that an amendment was not necessary. In fact, after taking into account all views expressed during the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Committee welcomed the requirement, as it will allow the public to be more discerning as to whom they give donations to.
In its letter to MLAs —

Jonathan Craig: I thank the Member for giving way. There has been anecdotal evidence — and proper evidence from the police — that unregulated collections have, unfortunately, been used by some unscrupulous people to line their own pockets instead of for charities.
Does the Member agree that a regulatory system for keeping a register of organisations that make collections, irrespective of whether they are charity shops, represents a huge step forward? Furthermore, that is a huge step forward for the police, and it will build confidence in the community that collections are legitimate.

David Hilditch: I thank the Member for his intervention. Those are wise words indeed, and they are also the thoughts of the Committee.
In its letter to Members, the Association of Charity Shops suggested that the Department misled the Committee on that matter. I strongly refute those claims, and, once again, thank the Minister and her officials for their full co-operation and support during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Anna Lo, Jim Shannon, David Hilditch and Jonathan Craig for raising those issues. I, too, received correspondence from the Association of Charity Shops, and I am aware that the Committee gave full consideration to the issues during its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill and concluded that no amendments were necessary.
The fundamental issue is one of accountability and transparency in respect of charitable giving. Members will be aware of public concerns and media coverage on fraudulent door-to-door collections, and it is important that we protect the public and charities against bogus or non-charitable collections.
The legislation will ensure that the charity commission is fully informed about the nature and purpose of all public collections. I am conscious, however, that we do not wish to impose an unnecessary administrative burden on charities that are involved in legitimate fund-raising activities. It is my judgement, and it was supported by the Committee, that there is sufficient capacity in the legislation to ensure that door-to-door collections by charity shops are not unduly hindered.
Clause 143 provides for the issue of open-ended permits, where necessary. That should address the concerns raised by the Association of Charity Shops. Mr Hilditch was right to say that the issue was raised in the local media this week by the British Heart Foundation. The foundation claimed that it would be required to apply for a separate licence for each charity collection that it makes in Northern Ireland, which could prove to be a considerable burden for the organisation. Again, I assure the House that that will not be the case.
As I have explained, after obtaining the necessary public-collection certificate, organisations may apply for an open-ended permit, which would cover a number of public collections. In my view, that system will achieve a fair and proper balance between the need for proper accountability and the demands on charities that are involved in fundraising through public door-to-door collections.
Jim Shannon and David Hilditch raised the issue of professional fund-raisers being required to make statements. In order to ensure transparency and proper public accountability, it is important that people are aware of what percentage of their donation goes to the charitable cause. Therefore, I assure the House that a statement by the professional or paid fund-raisers is an important part of regulation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 135 to 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 138 (Grounds for refusing to issue a certificate)
Amendment No 41 made: In page 105, line 11, leave out “benevolent or philanthropic”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clauses 139 to 158 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 159 disagreed to.
Clauses 160 to 164 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 165 (Application of Act in relation to designated religious charities)
Amendment No 42 made: In page 133, line 34, after “laid before” insert
“and approved by a resolution of”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 165, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 166 (Designation, etc. of religious charities) 
Amendment No 43 made: In page 134, line 15, leave out “10 years” and insert “5 years; and”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 44 made: In page 134, line 16, leave out paragraph (d). — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 166, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 167 to 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 180 (General interpretation)
Amendment No 45 made: In page 140, line 22, leave out
“except in so far as the context otherwise requires”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 46 made: In page 140, line 38, leave out
“Article 231 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“section 390 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 47 made: In page 141, line 29, leave out
“except in so far as the context otherwise requires”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Clause 180, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 181 to 186 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 (Appeals and applications to tribunal)
Amendment No 48 made: In page 155, leave out lines 33 to 45. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 (Group accounts)
Amendment No 49 made: In page 165, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert
“(2) A charity is a “parent charity” if it is (or is to be treated as) a parent undertaking in relation to one or more other undertakings in accordance with the provisions of section 1162 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 50 made: In page 166, line 5, leave out
“Article 267(1) of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986”
and insert
“section 1161(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 51 made: In page 166, line 13, after “section 64(1)” insert
“or, as the case may be, section 386 of the Companies Act 2006 (duty to keep accounting records)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 52 made: In page 166, line 18, after “section 64(1)” insert
“or section 386 of the Companies Act 2006”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 53 made: In page 166, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert
“(1) This paragraph applies in relation to a financial year of a charity if —
(a) the charity is a parent charity at the end of that year; and
(b) (where it is a company) it is not required to prepare consolidated accounts for that year under section 399 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) (duty to prepare group accounts), whether or not such accounts are in fact prepared.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 54 made: In page 167, line 7, after “parent charity” insert
“(other than a parent charity which is a company)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 55 made: In page 167, line 12, at end insert
“(6A) If the requirement in sub-paragraph (2) applies to the charity trustees of a parent charity in relation to a financial year and the charity is a company, that requirement so applies in addition to the requirement in section 394 of the Companies Act 2006 (duty to prepare individual accounts).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 56 made: In page 167, line 36, at end insert
“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), section 64 applies as if subsection (5) of that section were omitted.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 57 made: In page 168, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (7) and insert
“(7) If this paragraph applies in relation to a financial year of a parent charity by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) —
(a) subject to head (b), the appropriate audit provision shall apply in relation to the parent charity’s own accounts for that year (whether or not it would otherwise so apply);
(b) where the parent charity is a company and its own accounts for that year are not required to be audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46), section 66(2) shall apply in relation to those accounts (whether or not it would otherwise so apply).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 58 made: In page 168, line 34, leave out “section 66(2)” and insert
“(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b), section 66(2);
(b) if the parent charity is a company, section 66(2) or Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (as the case may be).” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 59 made: In page 168, leave out lines 42 and 43. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 60 made: In page 169, line 38, leave out
“Article 397A of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (NI 6)”
and insert
“section 499 or 500 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 (Minor and consequential amendments)
Amendment No 61 made: In page 176, line 7, at end insert
“The Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (NI 14)
2A. In Article 9 (grant of representation to trust corporation) in paragraph (4)(a) after ‘High Court’ insert ‘or the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 62 made: In page 176, leave out lines 22 to 29. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 63 made: In page 177, line 21, at end insert
“The Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (NI 1)
12. In Schedule 3 (disclosure for facilitating discharge of functions by other supervising authorities) —
(a) in the entry relating to the Department, omit the words ‘the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (c. 33)’; and
(b) at the end add —
‘The Charity Commission for Functions under the Charities Act Northern Ireland. (Northern Ireland) 2008.’.
The Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
13. — (1) In section 21(2)(b) for ‘Article 9 of the Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2048 (N.I.19))’ substitute ‘section 97 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(2) In section 31(4)(b) for ‘Article 9 of the Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2048 (N.I.19))’ substitute ‘section 97 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(3) In section 1140(2)(c)(ii) after ‘Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)’ insert ‘or section 33 of Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(4) In section 1154(1)(b) after ‘Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)’ insert ‘or section 33 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.
(5) In section 1154(2) after paragraph (b) insert —
‘(bb) in the case of appointment of a receiver or manager under section 33 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland;’.
(6) In Schedule 1, in paragraph 6(4) after ‘Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)’ insert “, section 44 or 45 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 (Repeals)
Amendment No 64 made: In page 178, leave out lines 11 to 13. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Amendment No 65 made: In page 178, line 16, at end insert
“The Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (NI 1).
In Schedule 3, in the entry relating to the Department, the words ‘the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964’.”
— [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Long title
Amendment No 66 made: Leave out
“to make provision about the funding of such institutions;”. — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]
Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Francie Molloy: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Charities Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Strategic Outline Case for Rapid Transit

Francie Molloy: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the content of the Rapid Transit for Belfast Strategic Outline Case.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I tabled this motion in order to provide the Assembly with an opportunity to discuss an exciting and hugely important transport initiative for the city of Belfast. A rapid transit system for the city — a modern, new and efficient public transport system — will move people quickly around the city, linking communities to jobs, schools, hospitals, shops and colleges. A rapid transit system will get people out of their cars and offer a high-quality alternative. It will reduce pollution, using the most modern technology in order to reduce our carbon footprint.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair)
Proposals for a rapid transit system in Belfast have been talked about for many years, but the time for talking is coming to an end. Rapid transit is one of my key priorities, and it is a key priority of the Programme for Government. This devolved Administration will deliver a rapid transit system: so, what is rapid transit? It is new to us; it is a step change for public transport, providing faster, higher-quality services, with new routes serving new opportunities, segregated from other traffic so that congestion is avoided. A rapid transit system will incorporate high-quality halts with real-time information and a ticketing system that will enable quick and easy boarding of vehicles.
Earlier this year, I visited several schemes in the Netherlands in order to understand the concept of rapid transit better. I invited members of the Committee for Regional Development to join me and was pleased that most of them did so. We were all impressed at what we saw, and how rapid transit systems provide quick and efficient access into city centres and a real alternative to car travel.
Belfast needs a rapid transit system. The city is the key economic driver of the region, and all successful regions have strong cities at their core. Strong, vibrant cities need modern and efficient transport systems. Rapid transit will improve the city’s image and will help to regenerate rundown neighbourhoods and open up new development opportunities.
My Department commissioned the consultants Atkins and KPMG to examine rapid transit systems with a brief to find the best system for Belfast. We did not have any preconceived ideas — it was an open brief. We wanted the consultants to examine the technology, routes, demand and cost, and they looked at light-rail and bus-based options.
Most Members will be familiar with light rail or tram systems. We have seen and experienced them in other cities, particularly the Luas system in Dublin, which has been very successful in bringing people into the city centre and getting people out of their cars. However, many of us are less familiar with bus-based rapid transit technology, which is relatively new and fast evolving. It has been described to me as a tram on tyres. No track is required, but it is segregated from other traffic as much as possible; it can also drive on the street in mixed traffic. It has priority at junctions, and the vehicles can be powered by diesel or electric hybrid engines.
There are bus-based rapid transit systems across Europe, in cities such as Amsterdam, Essen and Edinburgh; they are also being developed in cities such as Las Vegas, Cambridge, Swansea, Glasgow and Leeds. Other Irish cities, including Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford, are investigating the potential of rapid transit systems, including bus technology. They have recently benefited from discussions with officials from my Department, sharing experience and knowledge.
Whatever vehicle technology we choose, the right infrastructure is crucial. Rapid transit vehicles require high-quality halts or platforms with level access, real-time information systems and off-vehicle ticketing systems to speed up the boarding process. The whole package is about providing a fast, efficient and sustainable system.
Finding the best rapid transit system for Belfast is all about looking at potential passenger demand, wider regeneration benefits and affordability. The consultants’ study found that bus-based rapid transit will produce positive economic results, but that light rail will not. That is because the likely number of passengers does not warrant the extra cost of light rail. However, the consultants concluded that there should be an option of migrating to a light rail system in future, should demand increase.
The potential cost of a light rail network across the three routes identified was estimated at £590 million, while a bus-based system would cost £147 million. The consultants concluded that a light rail system would attract about 600 more passengers at peak hours than a bus-based system. However, attracting those 600 passengers would come at a heavy cost. The consultants’ analysis suggested that the additional cost of £450 million would be difficult to justify. They suggested that light rail, if selected, would carry approximately seven million passengers a year.
To put that in context, the Luas in Dublin, which is of a similar size to the proposed Belfast network, carried nearly 29 million passengers last year. Belfast is a smaller, less densely populated city than Dublin. Solutions that are right for Dublin may not necessarily be right for Belfast.
The feasibility study investigated several potential rapid transit routes. First, the E-way in east Belfast was identified in previous studies as a pilot route because of the opportunity to use the old Belfast to Dundonald railway line along a significant part of the route and the growing congestion on the Newtownards Road. Secondly, the emerging Titanic Quarter with its new jobs, homes, college and tourism potential must be linked to the rest of the city. A rapid transit system seems an obvious way to make such links.
Finally, west Belfast houses one third of the city’s population and contains the Royal Victoria Hospital, which serves many people in the city and beyond. The emerging Glenmona development site opens up opportunities for a rapid transit route that would serve west Belfast and link it to the city centre and beyond.
All three pilot routes connected together would provide a network of services that would allow cross-city journeys from Ballybeen to the Royal Victoria Hospital and from Turf Lodge to the Titanic Quarter.
Before making any decisions, I wanted to share the consultants’ findings, and that is why I published them at the start of April. I tasked my officials to engage with as many stakeholders as possible. Developing such a transport system is an important decision for Belfast, and it is right that all views are heard, understood and considered.
I am pleased to report that, so far, there has been broad support for rapid transit. There was undoubtedly some disappointment that the consultants recommended that light rail was not the best solution for Belfast. Some of the comments that I have heard are, “Dublin has light rail, why should Belfast not have it?” and, “It is a second-best solution for Belfast.”
None of the options — bus or rail — is second best. I want the best system for Belfast; one that works for us. That means examining carefully our current and future needs and matching them to the best technology — whatever it may be. That is what we asked the consultants to do.
I am not in the business of wasting taxpayers’ money on schemes that are not fit for purpose or of building schemes that will be a long-term drain on our finances. I am in the business of delivering a world-class rapid transit system for Belfast that is fit for purpose and of which we can all be proud.
Since the release of the consultants’ study, I have received letters from people who are concerned about the possible loss of the Bloomfield walkway and cycling path. It might be useful if I tell Members about the history of that amenity.
In 2003, work was undertaken to build a new sewer along parts of the old railway line. That presented my Department with an opportunity to create a walking and cycling route along the corridor while plans for rapid transit were being progressed. That work was undertaken in the full knowledge that the line would be used for rapid transit in the future; those involved in the construction of the walkway understood that.
It was decided that walkers and cyclists should not have to wait for rapid transit to deliver a walk/cycle route but that an interim pathway could be built while the rapid transit plans were being developed. I am conscious of the needs of walkers and cyclists and I am keen to support both. I intend to retain a walking and cycling amenity on that route. However, I will further consider the issues that have been raised; my officials are carrying out that work.
Concerns have been raised about the exclusion of north and south Belfast from the project. The proposals are for a pilot network that can be rolled out to other areas of the city. In the meantime, the needs of those other areas will not be ignored. More bus lanes, new buses, and park-and-ride sites are just some of the initiatives that are being developed. If rapid transit is to be successful, the system must be segregated from other traffic as much as possible, and given priority over other vehicles at junctions. That will mean changes to our roads and less road space for cars. I am prepared to take the difficult decisions that are necessary.
If we are to introduce rapid transit to Belfast, I want to get it right. I do not want to do it in a half-hearted manner that is destined to fail. The introduction of rapid transit cannot be done in isolation — it must be integrated with the existing Metro services. Rather than competing with each other, rapid transit and Metro should work together to serve passengers’ needs.
The introduction of rapid transit will also mean that we must do more to encourage people to leave their cars at home rather than bring them into the city centre. Rapid transit will serve the city centre; therefore, it is my intention that it will be integrated with the changes occurring in the city centre.
Rapid transit is one of my top priorities. It is highlighted as a key priority in the Programme for Government, with a commitment to start work by 2011. I have secured £111 million for rapid transit and my Department will continue to explore opportunities to draw in additional private-sector finance. Some private-sector contributions have already been secured.
The consultants have made recommendations on how we can best procure a rapid transit system. If we opt for light rail, a PFI or PPP method of procurement route is proposed. If a bus-based system is selected, the consultants recommend that the Department should build the infrastructure and tender out the operation of the service. That will be further considered as the project progresses.
This debate provides an opportunity to hear Members’ views on the rapid transit project. I want to benefit from those views before I take high-level decisions about the technology and broad routes that will be used. There is a lot of detail that still needs to be addressed. I want to move forward quickly to establish a dedicated team to deliver this project. That team will work through the detail quickly and efficiently and report back to me regularly.
Further decisions will be required on the final detail of the routes. However, today, I will listen carefully to Members’ views on the consultant’s report, and on how we can best deliver a rapid transit system for Belfast that we can all be proud of. Go raibh maith agat.

Fred Cobain: The Committee for Regional Development has been considering the strategic outline case for rapid transit in Belfast since 9 April 2008. Discussions took place at a number of Committee meetings and members had the opportunity to see the proposed routes for themselves.
In principle, the Committee supports the development of a rapid transit system for Belfast. It would provide economic, social and environmental benefits for the city. However, the devil is in the detail. Further work is needed on aspects such as guidance, technology, opportunities for off-road segregation, and the resolution of city-centre traffic management and on-street parking.
The Committee is particularly concerned about how the Minister will remove cars from the streets of Belfast. That is a prerequisite of any rapid transit system, and we are interested to see how that programme goes forward. The Committee urges the Minister to resolve such issues as soon as possible so that they can be reflected in the preliminary detail, design stage and outline business case.
The Committee also notes the consultant’s evaluation that, on the basis of projected passenger numbers, Belfast is too small a city to generate enough passengers for a light rail system to be viable. It is the Committee’s view that any rapid transit system should be built with the future in mind. Therefore, the necessary physical infrastructure should be put in place now to ensure that, should circumstances change, the system can be adapted to light rail.
In the course of its work on rapid transit, the Committee met executives from rapid transit manufacturers and operators in Northern Ireland and the Netherlands. We participated in a study of rapid transit systems that are in operation in Amsterdam, Eindhoven and Utrecht, which the Minister has already mentioned.
In the Committee’s view, the key lesson learnt from those engagements is that in order to maximise passenger numbers and positive passenger experience and to ensure that social, economic and environmental benefits accrue from proposed systems, the following element must be incorporated into any proposed bus-based rapid transit system: the dedicated rapid transit route must be separated as strictly as possible from other road users. Mr Wright of Wrightbus Ltd was particularly keen on that: a mixture of cars and rapid transit buses in the same lane does not work. Where complete separation cannot be achieved, priority must be accorded a rapid transit vehicle.
Any proposed rapid transit network must be fully integrated with other forms of public and private transport, with easy ticketing and transfers between rapid transit and existing bus, rail and park-and-ride facilities. It is essential that we have an integrated system that works; people will not choose public transport unless it is easy and efficient. The Committee’s view is that it must be made so. Where such issues have been addressed, passenger numbers have risen dramatically: the number of passengers travelling by train, for example, has risen in response to such improvements.
The Committee also recommends that every possible effort be made to ensure that the buses chosen should employ green technologies. Jim Wells made that point. Hybrid diesel-electric, gas electric, or an emerging fuel-cell technology should all be considered. At Wrightbus, we discussed hydrogen-cell powered buses, which is an exciting prospect. The Committee urges the Minister to grasp the opportunity to bring positive environmental benefits to Belfast that will go some way towards meeting our carbon emission reduction targets. Present emissions are appallingly high.
The relationship between land-use strategies and the development of a rapid transit system is critical. There are opportunities now, with the review of strategic planning documents such as the ‘Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002-2012’ and the fundamental review of the ‘Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025’ to propose a truly integrated infrastructure that will benefit Northern Ireland as a whole.
Since the publication of the ‘Strategic Outline Case for Rapid Transit in Belfast’, the Committee has had correspondence from residents who are concerned that the E-way from Belfast city centre to Dundonald will damage the existing amenity value created by the natural walkway and cycle path along sections of the old Belfast to Dundonald railway. The Committee’s view is that the Department should continue its engagements with stakeholders and user groups on the issue, as well as investigating alternative routes for the E-way corridor. In particular, a more detailed outline business case and design should be developed.

Jim Wells: I apologise to Members that, on finishing my speech, I will have to move quickly — and, unfortunately, by private transport — to Down District Council for an important meeting.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The Committee has been fully consulted on the issue. I had the benefit of going to Amsterdam twice to look at rapid transit systems. I must emphasise that it was to look at rapid transit. We have had numerous briefings from departmental officials — on one occasion when they were not expecting it. We have been given adequate information on the issue.
After much deliberation, we came to the view that, on this occasion, the right decision was made. Many ask why we do not propose an electric rail system: superficially, it sounds like a great idea until the economics are investigated. Given the size of the population of Northern Ireland and its geography, the figures do not stack up. An electric rail system would involve four times the capital cost of a rapid transit bus system. We went to Holland to compare the same decision-making process being undertaken by similar-sized cities and towns, and those communities have decided to opt for a rapid transit system. Properly designed, rapid transit is as good as electric rail.
It runs well where there are dedicated bus routes with which parked cars or cyclists, for instance, do not interfere. The Committee wishes the case for a rapid transit system a fair wind; we hope that it is successful.
As the Committee Chairman, Fred Cobain, said, the Committee’s submission to the Department addresses one or two issues. The Committee received many submissions from individuals who use the Comber walkway regularly. Initial concerns among those who use the walkway were that we were to abolish the entire walkway. That is not true. The Department intends to have a walkway, which will still stretch the length of the old railway line, and a rapid transit system.
The quality of walkers’ experience on that route will in no way be the same as it is now after the rapid transit system is introduced — that is a fact of life. However, it has been possible to achieve both with some success in cities such as Cambridge. It is hoped that that will reduce the level of people’s concerns, because the emails that I have seen contain no reference to the fact that the Department has taken great strides to try to preserve some amenity for the people of east Belfast.
The proposed rapid transit system should not have come as a surprise to the people who live in east Belfast, because the issue was flagged in BMAP and in all the planning procedures. The Department and the Planning Service have protected the route consistently and made clear that it was being protected for some form of rapid transit system. People, therefore, cannot say that they are shocked or surprised to hear the news, as they have in some of the letters that I have seen.
I remind Members that the route was the old railway line. Older Members — they would have to be quite old to remember this — will remember that a railway line ran along the proposed route. I do not accept that people are shocked at the proposal.

Fred Cobain: Robin Newton will remember the railway line.

Jim Wells: I do not think that Mr Newton remembers the trains on the Comber railway line — he is not that old.
To refer to the walkway as a disused railway track was perhaps wrong, and I am sure that the Department will accept that. It suggested that the enjoyment that many people get from the facility was not recognised.
The Chairman said that it is essential that there be total separation between the walkway and the rapid transit system. My slogan in that regard would be: “What do we want? Segregation now.” It is imperative that the system have a dedicated lane for the rapid transit system, one which it will not be possible for people to use as a quick route into Belfast or, worse, for parking. That will throw up some technical difficulties that will have to be overcome.

Peter Weir: Has the Member thought about installing some sort of Berlin-style wall along the route to prevent any other traffic from entering?

Jim Wells: Whatever form of segregation is chosen will have to blend into the environment and look the part. We saw it done effectively in Holland. If Members want to see exactly how to do it well, they should visit the Netherlands. [Laughter.]
The proposed rapid transit system offers the Minister the opportunity to show how green he is, in the proper sense, and to introduce vehicles that are environmentally friendly — electrically driven or using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) — so that we can reduce the emissions and the impact of the rapid transit on those who use the walkway. As does the Committee, I support the proposal in principle.

Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a ráiteas agus le Cathaoirleach agus le Leas-Chathaoirleach an Choiste. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion for the take-note debate. It is an important issue, and I also thank the Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson for reflecting the Committee’s views.
At its core, rapid transit is about a modern and efficient public-transport system. It has to move people around a city quickly and bring communities closer to their places of work, education, health and commerce, with all the obvious social, economic and environmental spin-offs.
Rapid transit must be seen as an alternative to the car. It must get people out of cars, and that can be achieved by offering a better mode of transport or by denying road space to cars by means of dedicated lanes. The rapid transit system will reduce pollution and our carbon footprint. To achieve that, we will have to use the best technology available. That technology will not only relate to hybrid engines but will be required to ensure the availability of real-time information, seamless ticketing systems and, where required, guidance systems.
Those objectives are achievable, and, as the Minister, Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson said, we saw successful schemes that covered a range of distances in cities of various population bases in Holland.
What was also very evident in Holland was that those in positions of responsibility had the ability and the desire to make the required decisions. Arguments will be made that Belfast’s streetscape is too restrictive, that people are too used to their cars, that congestion will never be tackled and that there is no additional space for dedicated lanes. All those arguments were made in Holland, but decision-makers had the vision, foresight and determination to bring about change. Therefore, I welcome the Minister’s intention to take the big decision on this matter.
Others who are already convinced of the need for a rapid transit system will use the example of the Luas in Dublin to argue that Belfast should have a light rail system. I believe that, given the capital investment required and the Atkins report about passenger numbers, the bus option is better. Given that the system will only attract 600 extra passengers, the figures provided by the Minister — £590 million for light rail and £147 million for a bus-based system — tell their own story. Although fiscal matters should never be the sole determinant in any process, in this instance the extra cost is not justifiable. That makes the case for a bus-based system all the more compelling.
The Committee was reassured that the Department for Regional Development wants to ensure that the construction of the system will be such that if a transfer to light rail is required in the future, it will not cause unnecessary construction costs and disruption.
The routes into east and west Belfast and the Titanic Quarter will be developed in the first phase of the development. The Minister said that there would be pilot schemes, but I have no doubt that this system will realise its social, economic and environmental objectives and that there will be a demand for new routes, taking the system into north and south Belfast.
Although I commend the Minister for this initiative and accept that Belfast is the key economic hub of the North, it is worth noting that Utrecht has a population base of 100,000 and has 105,000 jobs contained within its city limits. Utrecht has an efficient rapid-transport system, which was seen as one of the key drivers in securing and maintaining that level of economic performance. Therefore, the people of Derry will be watching the system unfold in Belfast and we will be at the Minister’s door to campaign for a rapid transit system in Derry, so that we can repeat the success of Belfast and Utrecht. Sin a bhfuil.

Alasdair McDonnell: I feel more sadness than excitement about the enthusiasm that I hear about the introduction of bigger and bendier buses, because that is what this amounts to. Some years ago, I raised the issue of light rail in the House of Commons, as I believe that light rail is the best system. I believe that, by juggling the figures for the cost options, the comparisons that have been presented are not as honest or as accurate as they should be.
I am glad that when I raised the issue in the House of Commons, I, along with others, managed to persuade David Cairns to extend the scope of the feasibility study that was beginning at that time. To a large extent, this discussion is a result of that study. I thank the Minister for tabling this issue, but I honestly believe that we are deluding ourselves if we are fooled into thinking that somehow or other people will all queue up to get on bigger buses.
The need for a rapid transit system was recognised in the investment strategy, as was the role that that system would play in attracting investment. If we do not include the investment potential of a light rail system, we are not comparing like with like.
Effective regeneration and infrastructure development is a highly complex issue, and many of the most disadvantaged parts of the urban environment in the Belfast metropolitan area face a range of complex social, environmental, educational and economic challenges. Dealing with those requires joined-up thinking across the Departments for Social Development, Employment and Learning, and Regional Development. The importance of a comprehensive, integrated approach to regeneration and infrastructure development cannot be overstressed.
The development of a rapid transit system must not be addressed as a single-issue project. Instead, we must ensure that it has a wide-ranging impact on the economic growth, regeneration and future prosperity of the city.
The need for a rapid transit system is well documented and was addressed in chapter 5 of the report. The report assessed four technology options and various routes. However, the conclusion that a light rail system would not be economical is wrong, and I will not be persuaded otherwise.
Belfast is reinventing itself, so there is no point in introducing a transport system in 10 years that was assessed on the city’s position three, four or five years ago. The Victoria Square complex has increased the retail capacity of Belfast city centre by 30%. Belfast has become one of the top 10 retail centres in these islands.
The regeneration of the Cathedral Quarter, the Titanic Quarter and other ambitious projects will contribute to bringing more people into our city. The downside of that renaissance is increased congestion on our roads and a lack of reasonable car parking. Much of the congestion is a direct result of our dependence on a failed bus-based public-transport system. Does anyone in the House believe that more buses or bigger buses will relieve our congested streets and persuade people to switch from their cars to a bus-based public-transport system?
Historically, Belfast was at the cutting edge of technology. The construction of the Titanic and other large ships 100 years ago, the construction of City Hall and the creation of the earliest electric street-lighting system provide ample evidence that Belfast did not always pursue the cheapest option.

David McClarty: I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Alasdair McDonnell: I urge the Minister to reassess the report and not accept it at face value. It is a very disappointing outcome, and I have to —

David McClarty: Order. That was not a signal for you to get your second wind, Dr McDonnell.

Alasdair McDonnell: I was not getting my second wind.

David McClarty: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Naomi Long: I thank the Minister for tabling this matter for a take-note debate. I have already written to the Minister on the subject, so I apologise if my remarks are repetitious. In my defence, many issues that are discussed in the House are repetitious.
I support the introduction of a modern and efficient rapid transit system for Belfast. It is good that we are moving away from facilitating the private car, which has been the emphasis to date and has been detrimental to the social and economic development of the city and the health and well-being of its citizens. Therefore, this is a good move forward. I will not spend my time throwing bouquets when I agree with the report, but I will highlight the issues that I am concerned about. Rapid transit is important, it must be advanced, and I hope that it is successful.
I share the disappointment of other Members, which the Minister referred to, that light rail was not the chosen option. I understand that there must be a balance between expenditure and development, but the aim is not just to capture customers for public transport, but to capture the public imagination. I have concerns about whether a bus-based system would be able to capture the public imagination to the same degree as a light rail system. To achieve a modal shift, particularly in a country where car usage is culturally ingrained, we require an imaginative proposal. That is something that I want to explore, particularly in the context of the Minister’s opening remarks that migration to a light rail system is a possibility in the future.
Given the balance in the Department’s budget, which is 80% in favour of road and 20% in favour of public transport at the end of the three-year Budget cycle, a skew in funding towards public transport and away from road building would help to achieve a higher-quality solution to the problem that we are discussing.
If we are to take big measures for the city, perhaps we have to spend slightly more money rather than implementing a more cost-effective but less imaginative solution.
An overall package should be implemented so that if the pilot scheme works and is effective, it will be clear how it can be rolled out throughout the rest of the city and to the connections in between. Putting it in that context is likely to make it much more successful. It will be difficult to judge whether it has been a success until the entire network is in place. That is the danger with pilot schemes, although, I do understand why that option has been pursued.
I also want to address the issue from a constituency perspective, with particular reference to the E-way. I accept that the rapid transit system is not a surprise. At one point, there was a proposal for a four-lane motorway along the Comber greenway. I was told that by someone who has lived in the area for approximately 43 years. I am glad that that is no longer being proposed. However, I am not entirely enthused about the current proposals.
The Minister is right that the E-way was well developed as an off-route cycling and walking route by the Department for Regional Development. No one anticipated how popular it would be, and it has outstripped what people expected. For that reason, people feel its loss more acutely than would have been the case a number of years ago.
What to do with the designated sites of local nature conversation importance and biodiversity along the E-way must be considered. The area around the Bloomfield walkway section of the greenway consists of terraced houses that have no gardens, so it is the only open recreation space available. For a long time, it has been used for that purpose.
I also want to draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that most people who have written to him with concerns about the system are avid users of public transport. They include cyclists, but they are also people who use buses and trains and are supportive of the concept. Therefore, that group of people can be worked with.
I simply want to know whether more could be done to dispel concerns that the new system will attack the Metro system that runs through the heart of east Belfast communities and along the main arterial routes. Furthermore, will the new system act to relieve congestion temporarily by transporting commuters from outside the city limits? That could result in people inside the city limits — who have already made the shift to public transport — being attracted back to using their cars. There is only a short period in which to address such issues.
Perhaps restricting the width of the new system should also be considered. There are options for tidal bus lanes that would reasonably accommodate cyclists, those who wish to walk and some form of rapid transit system. However, it concerns me that that would not be of the same quality. Keeping the channels of discussions open with those who have expressed their concerns will be most helpful.

Robin Newton: As other Members have done, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, and I thank the Minister for tabling the motion. A rapid transit system will benefit the economic development of Belfast as a whole, and the initiative signifies a move to progress the transport system in a way that the traditional bus system is unable to do.
Many people, including Mrs Long and I, will be disappointed with the decision to opt for a bus system rather than a light rail system. The latter is perceived to be relevant to the longer-term potential of an efficient rapid transit system and to the continued physical and economic development of the city.
I recognise that the capital cost estimates between rapid-bus transport and light rail systems that were set out in the report is an important element of the consultant’s recommendations of a bus-based system. However, the basis of the cost comparisons — at least in my humble opinion — are unclear about whether the comparison is like for like and whether the system, as suggested, can be upgraded at a later stage to incorporate trams or light rail.
The overall success of the scheme, as has been referred to, should not be determined only by the ability to move passengers from point A to point B. Rather, the system should be a major priority in contributing to the development of Belfast’s economy.
For that reason, as far as East Belfast is concerned, the rapid transit system should, ultimately, provide people with the potential to travel from places as far away as Comber, through Newtownards, Dundonald and Holywood Arches to the Titanic Quarter — that encompasses the travel-to-work area anticipated for the Titanic Quarter.
The Minister must also consider how the system will service the George Best Belfast City Airport. The airport is continuing to thrive; its passenger numbers are increasing, and it is further developing its services to Great Britain and Europe. That is a key point.
In his speech, Mr Cobain referred to the need for communication with communities. I have no doubt that the Minister will understand the concerns of bus users who faced a huge change when the Metro system was introduced. It resulted in radio phone-in programmes being deluged with complaints; letters to the press, and local community groups holding public meetings about the problems as that system was being introduced.
If the rapid transit system is to be successful, it must be characterised by a high level of specification, and I welcome the fact that the Minister mentioned the stops, interchanges, ticketing and real-time information that would be provided. To be successful, the system must be benchmarked favourably against any other system in any other part of the world.
Another feature that will make or break the system is how it will travel adjacent to other vehicles on the open road. In the absence of a dedicated route segregation and priority over other traffic, users need to be assured of the scheduled frequency and speed of the service.
As regards my constituency of East Belfast, the Minister will be aware of the environmental lobby that was mentioned. I am a regular user of the Comber Greenway, particularly around the Bloomfield area, and I enjoy that facility. Some people have strong feelings about protecting that area for the exclusive use of walkers and cyclists. I do not agree completely with those views, but, as Jim Wells mentioned, some sympathy for those points of view should be included in the proposals.
I will finish by saying that there are essential points that need to be considered. One of those is communication with the public, which I mentioned. The benefits to the economy need to be defined as that investment is rolled out. The system needs to be built to a high level of specification. The investment and involvement of the private sector should be considered. Potential routes within the city and traffic priority levels need to be defined —

David McClarty: The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Robin Newton: A value-for-money concept should run throughout the proposals.

Paul Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement regarding the rapid transit system for Belfast. Like many of my party colleagues, I am very happy that the system will also service West Belfast. For many years, transport infrastructure — or indeed any other infrastructure that came from Departments — for West Belfast has not been good enough.
The proposals should be about connecting West Belfast with other parts of the city. When the roads through West Belfast were designed, it was as though a moat had been created around the city, which was very hard to get out of. There was no connection between the bottom of the Falls Road or Shankill Road and other parts of the city. Those roads were blocked off, and it was very awkward for people to travel from one part of the city to another. I welcome this initiative.
Alasdair McDonnell talked about his preference for a light rail system. All of us would prefer such a system. However, although the bus system would cost £147 million, a light rail system would cost £590 million. The issue has been talked about for far too long. I have been a member of Belfast City Council for a number of years, and this issue has been considered by its development committee. Departmental representatives have come to the council and discussed the issue on many occasions, but the council has not done a single thing about it.
The Minister deserves credit, because £111 million has already been raised to develop the proposals. Other investment has yet to be made.
It is a credit to the Department and to the Minister that proposals are being put on the table and that the consultation process is almost complete. It is important to note that decisions have been made, and, in just under a year, we will see plans for the rapid transit system come to fruition. The proposed start date is 2011. The rapid transit system is a good measure, not only for the people of the city, but for those who are drawn to it from around the world.
We have heard about various quarters of the city during the debate. However, the Gaeltacht quarter, which is another emerging area that will, hopefully, attract many hundreds of thousands of visitors every year, has not yet been mentioned. We want to enable visitors to go from one part of the city to another — be that from the Titanic Quarter to other quarters — and that issue must be addressed in future plans.
The Royal Victoria Hospital attracts many people to Belfast, and that fact has been missed in the past. If the rapid transit system were to follow the right route, it could cater for people who attend the Royal Victoria Hospital — people could visit patients in the hospital as they please without having to fight the rush-hour traffic. If I am lucky enough to leave here just before 5.00 pm, it can take me over an hour — sometimes an hour and 15 minutes — to reach home on a route that passes the Royal Victoria Hospital. I know the pressure that hospital traffic adds.
We have many issues to consider. The Minister has already said that one third of the population of the city lives in west Belfast, and that is a key fact. West Belfast is also home to the emerging Glenmona site, which is the same size as the Titanic Quarter — and we do not know what will emerge on that site. It is hoped that the master plan will provide an idea of the number of people who will live and work in that area. However, we must also ensure that people from all parts of the city — including the west — will have the opportunity to work in the Titanic Quarter, which is vital for the future development of the city.
I commend the Minister on proposing the motion, and I hope that the rapid transit system will progress. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, we can always look at the opportunities for a light rail system in the future, and we should not lose sight of that. The Department has worked hard and has consulted several agencies, including various partnership boards and enterprise councils that also support the system. Go raibh maith agat.

Nelson McCausland: I welcome the debate. There is an overwhelming case for a rapid-transport system for the Belfast area. We have seen a tremendous growth in car ownership and car usage over the years, along with an increase in traffic and housing developments — particularly in the north of the city — and people from those public and private housing estates go to work in the city centre. Many new developments are being built in Belfast, which is our regional capital city and a regional economic driver. Traffic in Belfast has increased greatly and, therefore, there is a need for a rapid transit system.
It has already been said that the system must be integrated and linked to other aspects of transport. The system must be easy to use and provide an efficient service, and must be environmentally friendly. I have noted from discussions the merits and demerits of a rapid bus system and an electric light-rail system.
There is merit in further exploration and explanation of the decision that has been made. This matter must be looked at with a view to the long term, and it must be acknowledged that the capital cost is much greater for a rail system. However, we must look carefully to see whether that, in the longer term, is the most advantageous system.
I want to address the location of the pilot schemes, which has not yet been mentioned. Initially they were to be located in south and east Belfast; however, the Minister subsequently heeded the calls of his party colleagues in west Belfast, including Paul Maskey, who today outlined the great demand for the system that will come from the Gaeltacht quarter and other developments in west Belfast.
An overwhelming case exists for the provision of a pilot scheme along the north foreshore. The extent of the development in the north of the city and along the Shore Road provides many reasons for a pilot scheme on that route. The north foreshore development is due to start soon, and one has only to look at the number of students who live in Belfast but travel to study at the University of Ulster campus in Jordanstown or the Northern Regional College campus in Newtownabbey. All that development along the north foreshore — housing, the college campus, the university campus, schools, and so forth — creates a strong case for a pilot scheme along the north foreshore, York Road, Shore Road and beyond.
Given that there will be pilot schemes in south, east and west Belfast, will the Minister explain how the decision deliberately to exclude north Belfast was made? Will he reconsider the inclusion of a route along the Shore Road? There are many housing estates there and, by and large, people who live in them have family, business and work connections in Belfast.

Roy Beggs: I thank the Minister for Regional Development for his statement, and I welcome the vision shown in the strategic outline case that he sketched for the Assembly. However, as with all such projects, the devil is in the detail; the design and the delivery of the project will be crucial to its success.
Belfast is the main population centre and economic hub of Northern Ireland. It is vital, therefore, that it is developed as a modern city with a transport network that can facilitate the economic and social development of Belfast and the region. A prosperous and growing Belfast will help to create a prosperous and growing Northern Ireland. London and Dublin are prime examples of how successful cities are key drivers in their national economies. Modern business is drawn to locations that can offer a high standard of living and provide excellent transport, social and cultural facilities.
A huge potential for regeneration exists in areas that will be serviced by a rapid transit system. There is also a great opportunity to link areas of the city that have, historically, been isolated from each other. The environmental benefits of such a system must not be underestimated.
The Ulster Unionist Party would have preferred the development of a light rail rapid transit system to reflect its ambitions for Northern Ireland and Belfast. However, we accept the argument, as outlined in the strategic business case, that such a scheme is not, at this stage economically viable. Where would the additional hundreds of millions of pounds come from? In today’s fiscally constrained climate, not to choose the more economically viable option would have been irresponsible. It would have placed an additional burden on taxpayers and, perhaps, even defeated the purpose of a rapid transit system by imposing unacceptably high costs on its users.
The UUP welcomes that the strategic outline advised that the bus-based system be upgradeable to a light rail system in the future, when the figures justify it. The UUP strongly advocates that the scheme be designed and built with such an upgrade in mind.
There is no point in cutting corners when designing the proposed rapid transit system. The routes for the bus-based system must be segregated from mainstream traffic to facilitate speed and ease of use for the passengers, and that will be the difference between the existing system and the new rapid transit system. There must not be a halfway house, where buses and cars compete for space on the roads.
If the rapid transit system is to work, it must be made a priority. A major element of the scheme is to incentivise people to get out of their cars, with the result that traffic will be reduced, liveability in the city will be increased, and the environment will benefit. To do that, the system must be truly rapid. Equally, the Minister must give assurances that the system will be integrated fully with the existing — and any planned — Metro system, Ulsterbus network, and Northern Ireland Railways services. There must be adequate park-and-ride facilities at the tentacles of those networks so that the rural community can also benefit from transportation that goes right into the heart of the city centre.
We must ensure that such a system will be financially and functionally attractive to potential passengers. The Minister must also ensure that the rapid transit system will become integrated fully into larger development plans. He must consider — and aim to integrate the scheme with — committed and new developments in each of the areas that will be facilitated.
I hope that the Minister will work hard to ensure that the maximum developer contribution can be leveraged through planning permission. As the strategic outline case suggests, developer contributions towards the cost of the city centre Titanic Quarter route should be a condition of granting planning permission for the remaining phases of the development of that area.
The scheme presents great opportunities for the people of the region generally and for east and west Belfast in particular. However, I hope that the Minister will work with the Minister for Social Development, and with local communities, to ensure that such regeneration does not marginalise any community or cause unwelcome side effects. The Minister must take on board community environmental concerns when he is developing his detailed proposals.

Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like most Members, I welcome the fact that there is now a Minister and Department prepared to make the significant decision to introduce a rapid transit system. There is no doubt that Belfast needs such a system, given the chronic traffic congestion in the city. The scheme is to be welcomed, albeit that it will be introduced as a pilot scheme at the outset. I share the concern, and perhaps a little of the disappointment, that the area that I represent in south Belfast will not be included in the pilot transit scheme. Nevertheless, I can only welcome the fact that a scheme will be introduced in the city. Even on a pilot basis, that scheme must inevitably go some way towards reducing traffic congestion in the city.
If the project is to work and to take people from their vehicles and on to public transport, I presume that from the outset, traffic would be eased to some extent. I hope that that is the case, and I have no doubt that the Minister and the Department will hope the same.
I was concerned when Alasdair McDonnell appeared to dismiss the concept out of hand, saying that he was sad and disappointed. He went on to say that he raised the matter in Westminster some time ago; clearly, what he said fell on deaf ears, as he did not get too far with it. I am pleased that we now have a Minister who is prepared to take this important step and who will at least make a start on the project.
It was unfortunate to hear Dr McDonnell describe as dishonest the figures that the Minister mentioned. I do not think that that can go unchallenged. I do not know, and cannot second guess, the figures that the consultants and the Minister produced. However, there is a fair gap between the figures of around £147 million and £600 million that have been quoted, and I do not think that such sums could be played around with.
Clearly, we cannot ignore the cost. All Members and all parties here are fully aware that we have a finite budget and that we cannot pay for all the things that we want and that many of us included in our manifestos. Nelson McCausland referred to Paul Maskey’s mention of the Gaeltacht quarter in west Belfast. I suggest that the case for the north of the city may be helped if there were a Gaeltacht quarter in north Belfast, and I suggest that the Minister consider that in the time ahead.
It would be beneficial on a whole range of levels. The Minister referred to other parts of the city, such as north Belfast and south Belfast, in his statement. Raymond McCartney mentioned places that are outside of Belfast. Obviously, all Members have a keen interest in the project’s success.
During the time ahead, when we discuss whether it will be a “big bendy bus”, as Alasdair McDonnell described earlier, I hope that we will see what the delivery actually looks like. Some time ago, we were given images of the vehicles. It would be helpful if the public could see the type of infrastructure that is being discussed. That will help to inform everyone during the time ahead when we must make up our minds about the wisdom of the project.
I thank the Minister for the assurance in his speech that certain other areas will not be ignored in the meantime. In south Belfast, where there is some of the most serious traffic congestion in the city, the Minister has met residents’ organisations during the recent consultation on residents-only parking schemes. The City Hospital and Queen’s University draw in tens of thousands of people from all over the place. That contributes to serious traffic congestion in the area. Will the Minister elaborate on measures that will be introduced while pilot schemes are ongoing in other parts of the city, and give some indication of how long the schemes, during which those matters will be assessed, will operate, so that the wider public will have a sense of how long it may have to wait to see whether those pilot projects are successful and how long it will be until the extension of such projects throughout the city can be looked upon favourably? Go raibh maith agat.

Simon Hamilton: I support the report’s direction. At the risk of sounding like a bit of a trainspotter, I have had a long interest in the subject. As anyone who has read the report will be aware, one thing that we will not spot along the line is a train. My only slight disappoint­ment, which other Members have, understandably, mentioned in the debate, is that the light-rail option is not the preferred option.
The people of Comber, in my constituency, will have to wait a while longer to become, once again, the Crewe of Northern Ireland. Back in the day, Comber was at the centre of a commuter rail network, before Northern Ireland even had commuters. People have mocked my good friend Robin Newton because he remembers the railway line. Of course, he is far too young to remember it.

Nelson McCausland: He must have had a hard life.

Simon Hamilton: He had a hard paper round.
My colleague in Ards Borough Council Billy Montgomery recalls the last day of the Comber railway line, which, he tells me, was marked by a celebratory fireworks display. In retrospect, the event should have been a wake, and not marked in such a salubrious fashion.
I understand entirely that the lack of a sufficient population density in Belfast militates against a light-rail option. Having watched the film ‘Field of Dreams’ on television the other evening, I am tempted to say that if we build it they will come. I hope that, some day down the line, the possibly will exist for at least one of the lines to be upgraded to light rail status. It is important that whatever is constructed is compatible with conversion to light rail at a later date so that the costs of that can be mitigated.
I want to touch on two broad, substantive areas. One is the important matter of integration with other forms of transport. The Minister will forgive me for being parochial in that respect. The Comber Greenway has already been mentioned. It is a popular walking and cycling route. In fact, it has surpassed everyone’s expectations as to how popular it has become. Understandably, some people are concerned about the loss of that amenity. It is important that they are assured that it will not be lost and that, in fact, it will be retained in some way or another.
It is also important to remember that the E-way in east Belfast will run along a disused railway line that has, indeed, been set aside for many years for a rapid transit system such as that which has been proposed. I would argue for the extension of the E-way further into the Strangford constituency, into towns such as Comber and Newtownards, which are basically commuter towns from where we would hope to attract people out of their cars and onto the rapid transit scheme.
In a town such as Newtownards, there is the ludicrous possibility that one of the hardest parts of the daily commute is getting through the town itself. It is important that part of the service is extended to those towns to allow the optimum number of people to avail of the service.
In the interim period, a park-and-ride facility will be in place. The location of that park-and-ride facility in the east of the city is also important. If, as the report suggests, there is to be solely one park-and-ride facility, either in the Newtownards corridor or in the Comber corridor, some people may be tempted to drive out of their way to get to the facility to park their car. That may not have the desired effect.
In a previous reply to a question for oral answer (AQO 2710/08) from me, the Minister said that all procurement options were on the table, including PPP, PFI and private-sector input. That is welcome and important because such options can mitigate the substantial costs, which other Members have mentioned and which are included in the report, and any contribution that the private sector can make would be useful. In addition, the input of private-sector operators who have expertise in that sort of operation elsewhere in the UK, in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe, would be invaluable. There is a risk that we are so bus-focused and bus-orientated in Northern Ireland that a project that is completely different from that may not be as successful as it would be if it were run by a company that had the requisite expertise. The private sector can make a contribution to infrastructure — [Interruption].
I hear “Red” Fred Cobain barking from the back.
The private sector can make an important contribution to infrastructure such as stations. In Dublin, residential and retail developments that have been built by the private sector are adjacent to stations, and that allows substantial costs to be taken away.
The most important thing is that the rapid transport scheme is completed quickly. Some of us have been waiting for a long time, and it is important —

David McClarty: I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close before I have to strike him out.

Jennifer McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on the delivery of the rapid transit system, which will complement, improve and integrate public transport for the needs and the future needs of all the community in Belfast. It is hoped that such a system will be a pilot system, which, if successful, can be applied to north and south Belfast to deliver a long-term integrated and sustainable transport system that links all communities to employment, education facilities and hospitals.
As my colleague Paul Maskey said, it is no secret that areas such as west Belfast, including Shankill, have suffered a severe lack of investment in jobs and economic regeneration over the years. As was pointed out earlier, a third of the population of Belfast lives in west Belfast, yet it has some of the most deprived and disadvantaged wards in the North of Ireland. Many young people leave school with no academic qualifications and no prospect of employment. Therefore, the rapid transit system provides an opportunity to promote equality of opportunity through the linkages to employment and education.
Procurement was mentioned earlier. The investment strategy and the Programme for Government contain a number of key priorities, of which growing the economy and using increased prosperity and economic growth to tackle existing patterns of social disadvantage and ongoing poverty are central. The procurement of major infrastructure is committed to be taken forward in such a way to ensure that equality, sustainability and social outcomes are the core of the project. Therefore, the rapid transit system offers the opportunity to create economic regeneration in areas of disadvantage by creating employment opportunities in its development and opening up access to employment and educational opportunities by providing a much-needed gateway. The rapid transit system will also help the environment and cut down on traffic congestion.
The proposed route is mentioned in the pilot scheme. Although I appreciate that it is currently out for consultation, there would be a major gap in the service if consideration were not given to the Colin area at the edge of west Belfast. The route must include the main Stewartstown Road. The Colin area is made up of Poleglass, Twinbrook, Lagmore and Kilwee, and it has a population of 30,000, the equivalent of a small town. Currently, it is within the Lisburn City Council area, but that may change under the RPA.
The Colin area has high unemployment levels, and two of its wards rate in the top 10 on the Noble multiple-deprivation indices. One third of Lisburn City Council’s population live in the Colin area, and the fact that there is just one play park, one comprehensive secondary school and no major shopping facility or leisure centre demonstrates that it is highly deprived.
Although the Colin area is close to Lisburn, it is in west Belfast. Nevertheless, the transport system between Colin and Lisburn is totally inadequate. Although I am conscious that we are discussing the rapid transit system for Belfast, I hope that the Minister will also investigate the corridor between Belfast and Lisburn, particularly the route from the Falls Road to the Stewartstown Road and on to Lisburn.
It is important that people in the Colin area feel, and are, connected to employment and education opportunities in both Belfast and Lisburn, and, if the rapid transit system goes as far as the Colin area, people will be connected with leisure facilities and shops. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. Go raibh maith agat.

Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Members who took part in the debate. The contributions were interesting and, clearly, there is significant interest in the rapid transit proposals for Belfast from Members who live in and around the city and members of the Regional Development Committee. I also thank the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for their comments, and I appreciate the Committee’s broad support for the proposals.
As the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson said, the devil will be in the detail, and key factors must be developed further. My Department is happy to talk to the Committee about that, and I am pleased that the Committee recognises that, to date, there has been significant discourse between the Department and the Committee. I hope that that will continue.
Key issues of detail must be tackled, and they concern, as the Chairperson and others identified, the conflict for street space between cars and the rapid transit system — not to be too dramatic, the conflict in the streets. Quite a few Members mentioned transport integration as a potential obstacle to the system’s success, and we must address that key issue. Furthermore, in order to ensure an efficient, total transport system, integrated ticketing will be essential to connect the proposed system with Belfast’s existing system.
The Deputy Chairperson and others pointed out the potential to introduce a greener form of transport, and we saw evidence of that in Holland. Locally, we have also seen people’s ability to produce much more environmentally friendly vehicles, and, as we develop the project, those considerations will be high on our priority list.
Raymond McCartney, Robin Newton and other Members spoke of the necessity for top-class technology, and that is right. That connects to the points made by Naomi Long and Alex Maskey about capturing the public’s imagination; this is all part of that package.
Many Members were disappointed about the decision not to adopt a light rail system. If we act on the recommendations in the consultants’ report, we will have to embark on an exercise to capture the public’s imagination. That will involve the complete package, and not just, as Alasdair McDonnell said, bendy buses. It must be about technology, the facilities for getting on and off the buses, speed, the segregation from other transport systems, and the reduced travel time — the entire package. The purpose of the project is not, as some people implied, to create an additional bus system, but to create a new transport system that will attract people from their cars. Therefore, it must capture the public’s imagination.
In response to Alex Maskey’s point, in order to capture some imagination, generate interest and show people what this might look like, we intend to launch the system by displaying the type of vehicle that we are considering. If the discussion is confined to this Chamber and we do not manage to engender interest among the general public — the travelling public — in the Belfast area about the opportunities and potential for the system, this will have been a fairly worthless exercise.
Several Members mentioned the E-way and the Comber Greenway route, and the Department has been lobbied extensively on the issue. Although most Members who spoke today have recognised that the Comber Greenway was always earmarked as a route for a rapid transit system, nonetheless, it has proved to be a very popular cycle path and walkway. The Department appreciates that and is trying to develop proposals to allow the route to be used as a walkway and as a part of a rapid transit system. I am confident that proposals can be developed that will not push cyclists and walkers off the route.
Next week, departmental officials will meet residents along the route and show them some of the options being developed. I intend to examine the route soon to see how the plans could be accommodated, and I am very keen to find a satisfactory solution. The Department has put a great deal of resources and effort into promoting cycling and walking as alternative means of transport, and I do not want to develop a transport system that will impact negatively on such activities. Quite a few Members raised that issue, and I assure them that my officials are listening to what people are saying. I am confident that we can accommodate their needs.
Robin Newton and Simon Hamilton mentioned the possibility of extending the E-way route to Newtownards and Comber. It is fairly obvious that the further the system extends out of the city the more the population decreases and the more the proposal becomes less economical. The trick is to have a rapid transit system in a densely populated area in which there is a large footfall. Thus, it would make less economic sense to extend the scheme out to Comber. I hope that the pilot scheme is successful, and that people are attracted to use the system.
Paul Maskey and Jennifer McCann mentioned how the system could benefit West Belfast. The Department does see opportunities to connect areas across the city, including west and east Belfast, which have been difficult to connect. There will be an opportunity for people in economically deprived areas to have access to a transport system that would allow them better access to jobs and educational institutions, and so on. I particularly noted Jennifer McCann’s point about the Colin area of West Belfast, and she made a very good case for improving the transport there. Although the scheme being introduced is a pilot scheme, I hope that it will prove successful and can be rolled out to other areas across Belfast. Other Members also expressed disappointment that the scheme was not being introduced in their areas.
Alasdair McDonnell — who has now left the Chamber — and others mentioned their disappointment that the consultants had not opted for a light rail system. I am disappointed that he suggested that there had been some dishonesty in the figures used to justify the case for a bus-based system. I appreciate that people who have been impressed by the Luas in Dublin are disappointed that a similar scheme will not be implemented here. Nonetheless, the figures stacked up in a particular way, and though I accept that people are disappointed, I must point out that the proposed system allows for an upgrade to light rail in future if the numbers justify such a move.
Nelson McCausland mentioned North Belfast. Contrary to his suggestion, the BMTP has always included a proposal for a West Belfast route. When I became Minister, I asked that the study take in the entire city because I thought that it was quite restrictive to have just two routes in one part of the city. He also mentioned the north foreshore, which is already served by a motorway and a railway. As I said to Members for South Belfast, this is a pilot scheme, and I anticipate that it will be extended into other areas if it is successful. Developments in areas such as Girdwood Barracks would certainly create the necessary footfall to attract such a transport scheme. That type of destination would attract consultants to consider the introduction of a transport scheme, just at they have been attracted to consider transport needs in other parts of Belfast, such as the Royal Victoria Hospital and Titanic Quarter, and so on.
Several Members mentioned developer contributions, and I want to clear up an issue that Simon Hamilton raised. The consultants recommended a PPP/PFI procurement process for the construction of a light rail system. However, they recommended that the Department develop the infrastructure for a bus-based system and then look to a third party to lease it to.
The Department considered developer contributions, which Roy Beggs mentioned. We have written to the Minister for Social Development in order to maximise regeneration opportunities along the suggested routes.
Alex Maskey was one of those who asked what is happening on other routes. As I said in my opening remarks, because this is a pilot scheme the Department is looking at particular areas of the city. However, other parts of the city should not feel neglected, as there will be work on quality bus corridors and the extension of park-and-ride facilities. It is not a case, therefore, of all our eggs being put in one transport basket. These are pilot schemes that will be developed and which are expected to be a success and extended to other areas in the city. In the meantime, we also intend to improve the transport network in other parts of the city to ensure that public transport is improved across Belfast.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the content of the Rapid Transit for Belfast Strategic Outline Case.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker.]

Adjournment

Proposed Chicken Waste Plant at Glenavy

David McClarty: The proposer of the topic for debate will have 15 minutes in which to speak, and all other Members who wish to speak will have approximately five minutes.

Paul Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue in the Assembly. There has been quite a bit of concern in Glenavy and Lagan Valley and in the adjoining constituency of South Antrim about this proposed chicken waste incinerator plant, which will be located close to an existing Glenfarm Holdings incinerator plant that deals with offal.
The plant is proposed by a consortium of Rose Energy, Moy Park and O’Kane’s Poultry, and Glenfarm Holdings to try to deal with chicken waste litter, which, under the EC Nitrates Directive, cannot be spread on land.
I was looking at a question that was asked of the present Environment Minister’s uncle-in-law, Sam Foster, in 2000, by Ivan Davis, a former MLA for Lagan Valley, about Glenfarm Holdings when the existing incinerator plant received approval. The present Minister of the Environment wrote to me about, I believe, some 24 investigations of pollution of local rivers; there have also been numerous complaints about odours emanating from the plant. I spoke today to residents who were complaining about the plant and who had been visited by officials from the Environment and Heritage Service.
Despite measures that have been taken and approvals received under planning regulations, there has been widespread concern throughout Glenavy and as far away as Crumlin about how the plant has been operating.
There will be concerns that the new plant intends to bring some quarter of a million tons of chicken waste into the area to incinerate — I know that the modern-day term is “energy from waste”, but it is incineration nevertheless. I share those concerns about health and the environment and about the damage that this project, which will be on the banks of Lough Neagh, will do to local tourism.
It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and is one of the most scenic areas in Ireland. Therefore, it would blight the landscape if an incineration plant were to be built there. I met representatives from Rose Energy, who told me that the plant would take two years to construct, which gives Members some idea of its potential size. Rose Energy never ruled out using water from Lough Neagh and discharging effluent into it, and no one mentioned that issue in today’s debate. Therefore, there are concerns about the location of the plant. Some people will say that the plant will generate electricity and contribute to renewable energy in the area, but residual ash will have to be removed from the site.
There are also concerns about the impact that the plant will have on the road network. For some years, the volume of traffic on those roads has been a major issue. I sit on Lisburn City Council, and I know that numerous meetings have been held to discuss the traffic problem. The issue of the chicken-waste plant has also been discussed numerous times at Lisburn City Council’s environmental services committee. Council officials visited the existing plant before the Environment and Heritage Service assumed responsibility for such matters. Therefore, the impact that the new plant would have on the local road network would result in a 10-fold increase in traffic.
There are concerns among residents in the Crumlin area that the plant will be granted planning permission. Therefore, the Minister of the Environment is here this evening to give her view on residents’ concerns about the erection of such a large plant in the area of Lough Neagh. Indeed, most MLAs in the area share those concerns. Some parties have different stances on the issue of incineration. We have to deal with the nitrates directive, but Glenavy is not the location for such a plant.
There are alternatives to the type of plant that Rose Energy is proposing. Representatives from Rose Energy held public meetings in Glenavy, and it seemed that they had come up with their proposal at the last minute because of concerns about the nitrates directive. They had not even considered alternative proposals to deal with chicken waste. We have debated some of those alternative proposals over the past year. For example, anaerobic digestion in particular could be an alternative to an incineration plant. The Assembly and the Minister must consider alternatives to deal with the problem of chicken waste.
I share the residents’ concerns, and I know that people will say that there are 7,000 jobs in the poultry industry. Not all of those jobs are based in the North of Ireland, but Moy Park Foodservice and O’Kane Poultry, and the farmers who are associated with them, are concerned about the matter. Nevertheless, we must consider alternatives to Rose Energy’s proposals for the site.
I hope that the Minister will take my concerns on board, and I am sure that other Members will voice similar concerns. However, the issue is really whether we should site an incineration plant on the shores of Lough Neagh, blighting the landscape and causing pollution to the local area.

Trevor Clarke: After listening to the Member for Lagan Valley’s speech, I am amazed that we are discussing an application that is not yet in the system. He placed great responsibility on the Minister of the Environment. However, his entire presentation overlooked the failure by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and her Department to suggest an alternative to get rid of that by-product in Northern Ireland. The Member’s assertion that there is 250,000 tonnes of the by-product in Northern Ireland is correct. However, by December 2008, a system must be in place. It is not a new phenomenon; the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has known of the impending problem for some time, and her Department has failed to act.
Although there will always be concerns about the location of such proposals, we must recognise the need for the plant. The Member suggested alternatives; however, the Department has considered, and rejected, those measures. No Member could suggest an alternative that has not already been considered. Moy Park and O’Kane Poultry — through Rose Energy — have outlined a viable option that has worked on the mainland and in other parts of Europe, and the Member’s outright dismissal of that proposal is poor form.
There is a pressing need for the plant, and, as the Member said, thousands of jobs are at risk. The farming community lobbies us daily on the matter. Although I understand the concerns about the plant’s proposed location — the Nimby factor — we must recognise that the industry in Northern Ireland needs some sort of chicken-waste plant. Similar plants have worked, and continue to work, in Great Britain. The Minister can speak for herself, but she needs time to consider the application when it is submitted. We are projecting fear and negativity, and, therefore, I urge Members to be cautious when discussing the application and to remember that thousands of people are depending on a system to protect their jobs.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Billy Armstrong: The debate highlights an important issue facing society in the twenty-first century. From what source do people want to obtain energy? What type of food do they want to eat? How do they want to dispose of waste products? We need to neutralise all waste to create power. Everyone wants access to energy and power. We want to boil kettles, watch televisions, switch on cookers, make food and heat our homes. People are less likely to venture an opinion on whether coal, oil or gas-fired power stations is their preferred source of energy. Westminster and Whitehall appear to favour nuclear power — is that an option?
Most people claim to support renewable energy. However, suggestions to erect a wind farm — one of the cleanest and most renewable energy forms — are usually met with opposition. Hard choices must be made. As with food, people want power; they do not, however, want to be involved in its creation. People do not support lignite mining, nuclear power or even wind farms.
The Glenavy proposal relates to recycling animal waste — specifically chicken waste — to create power and reduce pollution on waterways and land. Our society creates vast amounts of waste that must be disposed of somewhere. Although people do not want to live near landfill sites, we have been, for too long, content to send all waste to landfill. We have now learnt that we cannot continue to bury all waste in a hole in the ground, and, therefore, we have an increased amount of waste to recycle.
As with all planning applications, the Minister and her officials must assess available evidence and decide whether certain types of waste-disposal facility, including landfill, recycling and waste-to-power units pose any health risks. I understand that the proposal is for a state-of-the-art facility of the kind already exists throughout Western Europe, and, therefore, I consider it perfectly safe. If the Minister decides that the Glenavy location poses no risks, it should be included in Northern Ireland’s efforts to recycle and create energy.
I am a farmer so I know how important it is to find ways to dispose of farm waste and by-products. The site at Glenavy has been in operation for about 55 years. No one would seek to implement a system that was dangerous or that posed a high health risk. People have been living near the proposed plant site for over half a century.
We are now living in the twenty-first century, and we must utilise modern methods of farming, waste management and energy creation. Rose Energy’s proposal for the Glenavy site does all three. That is better than digging big holes in the ground and filling them with waste.

Thomas Burns: This is a very important issue. The proposed chicken-waste incinerator plant affects the constituencies of Lagan Valley, South Antrim and Upper Bann. There is tremendous concern in the local community about what is involved in the establishment of the plant and the extent of the buildings associated with it. Will the incinerator operate at a level that is efficient enough to produce electricity, or is its main purpose that of the waste disposal of chicken waste? That is the big question.
There is no doubt that the proposed incinerator plant is sited in a rural area. Neither is there any doubt that such a plant belongs in an industrial estate.
There are several reasons why the Glenavy site is the wrong location for the incinerator. The banks of Lough Neagh are an important wildlife sanctuary. We are trying to create a tourist industry, and to develop areas that tourists can visit, such as Lough Neagh, which is an important natural resource. Ram’s Island, which is situated in Antrim borough, is a location that the council would like to promote as a tourist attraction.

Trevor Clarke: The Member has mentioned Ram’s Island. I do not know whether he attended last week’s meeting of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, at which the representatives of Rose Energy gave a presentation about the proposed plant. They showed a picture of Ram’s Island, and gave a synopsis of how the plant would look from there. The plant can hardly be seen on the mainland from the view on Ram’s Island. Will the Member clarify that he saw that presentation last week?

Thomas Burns: The Member should know that the chimneys and the water-cooling tower will be as high as the Belfast City Hospital tower.

Trevor Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Thomas Burns: No. There is no question that the plant will be seen clearly from Ram’s Island.

Trevor Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member is trying to mislead this Chamber. The information that was given at the presentation was that the height of the proposed building was 43 metres. If the Member had attended the Committee meeting, he would have known that. He is trying to make out that the buildings will be 100 metres high, so he is trying to mislead people in this Chamber.

David McClarty: I warn the Member about what he has said, and I ask him to refine his language. Mr Burns is entitled to say whatever he wants in his description.

Trevor Clarke: Even if he is misleading?

David McClarty: That is your description, and I ask you to be careful about saying that anyone is misleading the House. I ask you to withdraw your statement.

Trevor Clarke: I refuse to withdraw it.

David McClarty: I ask the Member again to withdraw the remark, on reflection. Otherwise, I must ask him to leave the House.

Trevor Clarke: I will withdraw the remark, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I still believe the information to be inaccurate.

Thomas Burns: I was at the Agriculture Committee meeting last week, and I heard that presentation. The Committee had to be suspended when it became inquorate, because Members left to attend Question Time. However, I was present.
We are trying to build a tourism industry in a rural location on the banks of Lough Neagh. One of the greatest benefits of Lough Neagh is that it provides us with drinking water. The two main pumping stations of Castor Bay and Dunore Point are within six miles of the proposed plant, and millions of gallons of water are pumped out of Lough Neagh there.
Both the Lisburn Area Plan and the draft BMAP designate the area around Glenavy as an area of high scenic value and special scientific interest. People who have applied to build houses in the area have been refused planning permission, as it is an area of scenic beauty.
For years, the people of Crumlin and Glenavy have heard the arguments about modern technology, and they have been reassured that there will be no smell from the plant. However, the people who live close to Ulster Farm By-Products know that there is a smell from that plant. No-one will be fooled by the argument that chicken litter can be moved without creating a smell — there will be a smell.
The Glenavy site, being is in a rural location, is totally the wrong site for this plant.

David McClarty: The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Thomas Burns: I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no piggybacking in respect to this plant. It should be put to a public inquiry.

David Ford: I thank Paul Butler for securing time for this matter, which is of significant interest to many people, not only those who live in, and around, Glenavy, but further afield. As Thomas Burns said, the area extends into three constituencies.
First, we should sympathise with the farmers who are caught up in the problems caused by the nitrates directive. The major issue is that farmers must have some sort of plan in place by the end of this year, and many are still trying to deal with it at this late stage. It is clear that farmers in Northern Ireland have severe problems, as nitrates and phosphates can no longer be spread on the land. That will create difficulties, no matter what we say in the Chamber this evening.
We should have sympathy for those who are caught in that predicament and for those who work in poultry plants and other poultry businesses, which contribute hugely to our economy. Several thousand jobs depend on the poultry sector, so we should not take it lightly.
Having said that, we must examine the best option. Part of the problem with the application from Rose Energy is that two of its three partners are respected for their role in the Northern Ireland economy. O’Kane Poultry and Moy Park make significant contributions, provide significant employment and contribute to Northern Ireland plc.
However, the third partner has a jaded reputation among local people. Having had the misfortune of cycling past its plant a couple of summers ago, I sympathise with the people who live closer to it than I do.
Is incineration the most suitable process? I recently had a visit from someone who is assessing the viability of anaerobic digestion wastes from farms and similar businesses. One of the key advantages of anaerobic digestion is that it works on a much smaller and dispersed scale than incineration. That would create an opportunity to develop several smaller plants; it would also benefit from transport savings.
Chicken litter is drier than other wastes. However, a co-operative process that dealt with more than merely chicken litter could mix in other agricultural wastes, such as those from creameries and other food producers. That possibility should be explored.
However, the final decision on the matter may be confirmed before the full facts about energy from waste have been uncovered. “Energy from waste” is a polite term for incineration — it may not be the best practical or environmental option.
If incineration is deemed to be the best option, what is the best location, or locations, for such a plant? Lough Neagh is not just protected at a domestic or UK level; it is a Ramsar site and should enjoy the highest level of environmental protection. Therefore, the shores of Lough Neagh are not the most suitable location for a chicken-waste plant. Furthermore, the surrounding roads would not cope well with a large number of lorries coming into the area every day and week.
Paul Butler asked whether water from the lough will be used in the cooling process; that question has not been answered. It has been claimed that one of the advantages of the Glenavy site is that it is remote from poultry farms. Unfortunately, it is also remote from the industry and housing concentration that would make real use of the waste heap that will be produced. Under the current proposals, material of calorific value will be carted long distances to a plant that will yield approximately only 25% energy efficiency.

Trevor Clarke: The Member is not on the Committee for Agricultural and Rural Development. Therefore, he would not have heard Rose Energy’s presentation in which they gave valid reasons for locating the plant at Glenavy. The first of those reasons is the existence of Glenfarm.
The second reason was that the Glenavy site would have a three-mile exclusion zone in the event of an outbreak of avian flu, for example. If the plant was located in an area of industrial contentration, such an outbreak would close down other plants, too.

David Ford: I am not a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, but I heard a similar point being made at the Committee for the Environment. I thank the Member for his intervention anyway.
We must maximise energy value and achieve more than the proposed 25% energy efficiency. Indeed, given the amount of energy that will be expended on carting waste, energy efficiency will probably be less than 25%. We should assess the viability of an industrial site that could yield 70% or 80% energy efficiency.
Given that EHS is granted the lead role in the management of domestic waste, the Department of the Environment should consider giving it a role — in conjunction with DARD and DETI — in the better management of agricultural waste. That would be preferable to leaving it for private businesses to submit their best proposals. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some kind of a lead on that.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I am not speaking in a ministerial capacity but as a Member for the constituency of Lagan Valley, in which the proposed biomass plant will be located.
I recognise the need for such a facility in Northern Ireland; I am not unsympathetic to the requirements of the poultry industry in that regard. I also echo the comments made by Mr Ford and Mr Trevor Clarke, which identified the requirements and targets placed upon us by the European Union.
We have a limited time to resolve this issue, and I question whether this is the right proposal and the right location. I am not convinced that Rose Energy’s proposal is the only option that is available to enable Northern Ireland to meet our targets and to comply with the requirements laid down by the European Union. At the moment, I am in discussion with a Northern Ireland-based company that uses a more environmentally friendly process, will recycle the chicken waste, and will create a fertiliser by-product that the agriculture industry can use. That is therefore a much more efficient and effective process that will have the same advantages as Rose Energy claims for its process. The company that I refer to is in discussion with DARD, DETI and DOE about this matter. I seek to advance that option, because I believe that it is a better alternative.
I recognise the needs of the poultry industry and poultry farmers, as well as our targets and obligations, but I am not convinced that Rose Energy’s process is the best technology for achieving those objectives.
I am far from convinced that this is the right location. For years, I have been aware of the concerns of local residents about the impact that the existing plant, which is on the Ballyvannon Road, has on the quality of their daily lives. The road network in that area has been badly damaged by the heavy vehicles that travel daily to and from that plant. The lives of local residents have been made miserable, and I mean miserable. Residents have come to me in tears as a result of this matter, and others have had to sell up and move out of the area because of the impact that the existing plant has had on the quality of their lives. If we factor into that the additional, heavy traffic that will be generated by the transportation of chicken waste to the new plant, I cannot understand how the quality of life for residents will be improved. Indeed, it will have the opposite effect.
The environmental impact must also be considered. Mr Ford is correct: this is an environmentally sensitive area that is close to Lough Neagh. Not just the visual impact is in question; the impact on the environment as a whole must also be considered. The issue is location sensitive. If one were searching for somewhere in Northern Ireland to locate a plant of this sort, one certainly would not put it beside Lough Neagh, which is one of our greatest natural resources. That must be taken into account.
The impact on tourism is also a factor, but the environmental impact is the major factor that the Department should consider when a planning application is made. The impact on the roads will also have to be considered. These are narrow country roads — it is a rural area, and the roads were not built to take the heavy traffic that is to be anticipated. At the very least, Rose Energy needs to look for an alternative site if it is serious about the proposal. This environmentally sensitive area is the wrong site for the plant, which will have a detrimental impact on the lives of local residents.
I have spoken to poultry farmers who have lobbied me on this issue. When the impact that the plant will have on the local community is explained to them, they have shown themselves not insensitive to it. They are prepared to consider alternative locations, and they are also open to considering other processes.
If a planning application is made, the Planning Service will have to consider it in due course. However, in those circumstances, the Department will be within its rights to exercise its authority to hold a public local inquiry on the matter. The issues are of such a nature and of such importance that, at the very least, a public inquiry will become necessary if the plan goes ahead.

Basil McCrea: Much has been said about the plant, but it boils down to five key issues: whether such a plant is needed; the appropriateness of the Glenavy/Crumlin location; if that location is chosen, the appropriateness of the technology; how trust may be built with the local community and its legitimate concerns addressed; and perhaps most appropriately, whether there is anything that the Minister can do to resolve this pressing issue.
Is the proposed chicken waste plant required? Members are aware that the chicken processing industry is under severe pressure. It must fulfil its obligations under the nitrates directive, and time is of the essence. Even if the plant were built today, it would not be completed and commissioned in time for the industry to avoid significant fines; that will happen regardless. Therefore, part of the reason for the tabling of the Adjournment debate is to try to see whether we can move with some alacrity.
Members have spoken about the scenic beauty around Glenavy and the fresh water in Lough Neagh; however, I can see only two compelling reasons for the choice of the Glenavy/Crumlin area as the location for the plant: either planning permission was granted previously, or a site is there already. We have heard the difficulties associated with that, and such a decision should not be made simply because it is the easy option. The Assembly should be able to take a more strategic view, and weigh up the options before deciding where in Northern Ireland is the best place for the chicken-waste plant to be located.
Although some Members have argued in favour of the technology, areas in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom have rejected that technology, because they are unhappy with it. We should, at the very least, investigate those issues and discover the truth. Until we know that, how can we recommend that route to anyone? There are issues , not only associated with the transport of the waste into the area, but with the toxins that are pushed back.
Many Members will have joined the debate about smoking and the causes and difficulties associated with passive smoking. The emission of toxins from a plume is a similar issue, as are the low levels of asbestos. The quantities involved are minute, but people will have legitimate concerns if they are not assured that their concerns are being tackled. Not only the surrounding area of Glenavy will be affected, but, depending on the wind direction, the whole of Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, there is the matter of trust. I attended a meeting with the Minister of the Environment about another state-of-the-art facility at Mullaghglass. We were assured that it was state-of-the-art; that there would be no smells from it; that it would not attract rats; and that there would not be any fall-out. However, the local residents have had their difficulties. The Minister told me that if those issues were not sorted out, we could not expect to build plants anywhere else. There is an issue of public confidence and trust.
Several concerns must be addressed. The roads infrastructure is incapable of handling the loads that will be brought to the plant. There is also an issue with smell; with that come other hazards that do not smell but which are more deadly — carcinogenic products, such as odourless gases and toxins. It has been suggested — and the Royal Commission agreed — that if plants such as the one proposed for Glenavy are considered safe, they should be built in industrial plants where the water and electricity that is produced can be used.
The companies concerned recognise the need to draw water from Lough Neagh and put it back for cooling, and that will have an environmental impact. My request to the Minister is similar to Mr Donaldson’s: can she intervene on that issue before a planning application is made, or can she instigate an appropriate review? When we discussed the environmental protection agency, the Minister assured us that she would make decisions and could tackle related issues. I call upon her to do so. As Mr Ford said, it is not fair to ask industry to undertake the burden of this issue, or to tackle a problem that belongs to the whole of Northern Ireland. Not only is the Minister of the Environment responsible, she has the ability to influence. I call upon her to institute a review.

Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the residents of Glenavy and the Lough Neagh area in their call to the Minister of the Environment either to reject the proposal outright or to initiate a local public inquiry to consider the full environmental impact of building the proposed chicken-litter waste incinerator in an area that is designated as being of high scenic value.
I accept that, as a society, we must devise a sustainable means of disposing the waste that we generate. We can, and should, do so without resorting to incineration or landfill, as neither of those options can be honestly described as sustainable. The impression being given by those in favour of the incinerator-based proposition is that there are no alternatives, but the simple fact is that there is more than one solution to meeting the terms of the nitrates directive. I hope that common sense will prevail and that other processes will be given full and open-minded consideration.

Trevor Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin: I will not give way now, but I understand that the Member is particularly exercised by this issue, so I may give way later if I have time.
I share the residents’ justifiable concerns about the long-term environmental impact and the health implic­ations for the community, among other issues, particularly in light of the fact that viable alternative solutions to the waste issue — such as anaerobic digestion, linked to a combined heat and power installation — are available, and are tried and tested technologies.
If necessary, anaerobic digestion can be done on a smaller scale and in closer proximity to where the chicken litter is generated. That would eliminate the need for transportation, in contrast to the present proposal, which would necessitate the wholesale importation of chicken waste into the Glenavy area to facilitate and support the incineration option. That would generate additional pollution through the increased heavy vehicular traffic. As other Members have said, the proposed development also involves the very real potential of causing serious water pollution in the Lough Neagh area — an area which, in addition to being hugely important from an environmental perspective, is a major source of drinking water. Therefore, in the long term, the proposal involves an unnecessary risk to public health.
This is not a case of people arguing “not in my back yard” — at least, not by the residents of Glenavy. However, considering that there is no significant poultry production in the proposed location, it would be a legitimate argument for them to make.
I fully acknowledge Trevor Clarke’s point about avian flu, but, if a calamitous outbreak were to occur, presumably the generation of chicken waste would also cease. Therefore, I do not believe that he has given a legitimate alternative to the point that Mr Ford was making at the time. We must question the motivation for building such a facility in a location to which it would be necessary to transport the waste. There is little or no production of poultry — or of poultry waste — in that area. That is, unless those who are engaged in this industry are themselves subscribers to the Nimby concept and would prefer to export their problem to Glenavy.
I call on the Minister to listen to the concerns of the local population and to use her powers to reject this proposal, and I call on the promoters of this ill-considered project to abandon it.

Arlene Foster: Although it is always good to hear Members’ views — and I have listened with great interest to the support for, and opposition to, the proposed development at Glenavy — it is unfortunate that the debate is taking place in something of a vacuum. By that I mean that the Department has not yet received any planning application for the development. It is therefore very difficult for me to respond to some of the comments made by Mr Burns about the height of different installations. I do understand that there have been several engagements between the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee for the Environment on the matter.
Members are right to point to the origin of the issue, which is the nitrates directive that was introduced by Europe in 1991. Since then, our own nitrates action programme has come into effect, and the practice of spreading poultry litter and bedding on agricultural land has effectively ceased. In that context, Mr Burns’s comment about the issue affecting three constituencies is incorrect — the problem affects the whole of Northern Ireland, and a solution must be found for the whole of Northern Ireland.
During the development of the Nitrate Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, it became evident that off-farm solutions for the pig and poultry sectors needed to be advanced. Therefore, in 2005, a working group called — and this is a very good title, Mr Deputy Speaker — the expert group on alternative uses for manure was established, with representatives from DARD, DOE, DETI, the pig and poultry sectors, and the environmental non-governmental organisations, under DARD’s chairmanship.
The technical approach that is being proposed by Rose Energy Ltd was endorsed by that expert group. I listened to the points that my friend, the Rt Hon Member for Lagan Valley Mr Donaldson, the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Basil McCrea and Mr Ford made about alternative ways to deal with the issue. However, the expert group, which was — correctly — established under the chairmanship of DARD, and includes officials from DOE and DETI, has identified that the waste plant is the correct technology to use. On many occasions, I have asked myself if there is an alternative. The answer has always been that the experts have examined the issue, and this is the only way forward.
If there are alternatives, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development would be only too happy to examine them. As Members know, at present EHS is responsible for regulation and will be succeeded by the new Northern Ireland environment agency. Therefore, I will be the regulator, and the DARD Minister and the DETI Minister will be seeking an answer to the problem.
When this topic was proposed for the Adjournment debate, there was much discussion about which Minister would answer the debate because it is a not only a problem for DARD and DETI because of jobs or for my Department because of the planning application and a permitting viewpoint, it also concerns OFMDFM with regard to sustainable development. Therefore, the Minister from any of those Departments could have responded.
The expert group on alternative uses of manures was assigned to investigate technical solutions for uses other than land spreading. As I said, it recommended that poultry litter be dealt with in a fire generator for the poultry sector. That recommendation helped to persuade the European Commission to allow a temporary measure in the Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 for the storage and application of poultry litter in field heaps until 31 December 2008. As the derogation finishes at the end of this year, there is a great deal of urgency to find a solution to the emerging nitrates problem. The difficulties that face the farming sector, particularly poultry processors, have been recognised by all the Members who spoke in the debate.
Moy Park Ltd and O’Kane Poultry Ltd came together as a consortium to pursue a solution to the emerging nitrates problem, and — as the House has heard — they were joined by Glenfarm Holdings Ltd. The consortium is called Rose Energy Ltd and proposes to construct a biomass plant on a site adjacent to an existing Glenfarm Holdings Ltd facility at Glenavy. I listened to the various concerns that Members raised about the Ulster Farm By-Products plant at Glenavy, and I have answered several questions about that plant from two of the Members opposite. There have been difficulties: the company was regulated by Lisburn City Council until November 2005, after which the Environment and Heritage Service permitted the installation under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003.
Since November 2005, departmental officials have regularly inspected the operations at the site and have responded to and investigated complaints from many of the local residents. They also attempt to keep residents informed of the work ongoing to minimise further the environmental impact of the site, particularly the odour, which was referred to in the debate.
Over several years, Rose Energy Ltd has worked closely with Invest NI and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to confirm the feasibility of its proposal and investigate potential ways of aligning the necessary funding to support the project — it was a feasibility plan that was part-funded by Invest NI that suggested the site at Glenavy. It is envisaged that the proposal would reduce not only the nitrate input, but also the phosphorous input, to which Mr Ford referred, from agriculture that contributes to eutrophication, which is the most widespread pollution problem facing Northern Ireland’s water environment.
In addition, the proposed burning of poultry litter, and meat-and-bone meal would produce 30 MW of electricity, which would help Northern Ireland achieve its obligation to generate 12% of its electricity from indigenous renewable resources by 2012. It is in that context that Members should take Billy Armstrong’s well-made comments about the need for renewable energy.
Mr Burns wondered whether the plant would be used for waste disposal or for electricity generation. Such uses are not mutually exclusive, and part of its benefit, if the plant were to be built, would be the provision of electricity generation.
Although departmental officials have held pre-application discussions with agents, the planning application and the necessary environmental statement have not yet been submitted. I am sure that when they are submitted, they will be given intense consideration.
I realise that the proposal has already generated considerable opposition, and there has been much public debate about the impacts of the proposal, and, indeed, the manner in which I might deal with the planning application. I must also acknowledge that I have received substantial support from others in the community who feel that there is a need for such a plant. Therefore, there are two sides to the debate.
The planning application will be dealt with under the procedures for the handling of major applications, as laid out in article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Under those provisions, a final decision on such an application rests with me, as Minister. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to express any view that suggests that I have already adopted a position on the matter before it has been given full consideration through the formal planning process.
I look forward to the planning application being submitted, because the debate has been going on for some time, and there is a need for focus. When the planning application is received, with its environmental statement, I hope that Members who are concerned about the issue will take the time to read the entire application and statement. That may take the entire summer, but I know that they will take the time to do that.
The article 31 process that I referred to will allow me, if necessary, to ask the Planning Appeals Commission to hold a local public inquiry to consider any other procedural issues. That is one option that will be available to me at the end of my deliberations.
Much has been said about alternatives. When Mr Butler — who secured the debate — talked about alternatives, I thought that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development would be delighted to hear of them, because I know that she is exercised about the issue, as, indeed, am I. I have no current knowledge of any technology that can deal with poultry litter in the required manner. If alternatives exist, we will be glad to hear about them.
Members will be interested to know that, as well as planning permission, Rose Energy will also be subject to the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003. Furthermore, the issuing of any permit is currently a matter for the Environment and Heritage Service.
The permit process requires the submission of an application that details how the plant will use the best available techniques to ensure that all measures are taken to prevent pollution. The application would have to demonstrate that the installation will be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with best available techniques. In particular, it would have to be in line with the requirements of the European directive on waste incineration, which would entail the provision of rigorous and transparent information on the process and technology proposed for the installation.
I note the calls from colleagues about the importance of intervention and the requirement to resolve the issue. Mr Ford, in particular, addressed that issue.
I hope that, by now, I have made it clear that this is a cross-cutting issue. DARD takes the lead role because it is trying to find a solution to the issue of agricultural waste. I clearly have an interest in the issue, not simply from a planning-permission point of view, but as a regulator. Therefore, the Department of the Environment will continue to be engaged. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will also continue to be involved, because of the fact that so many jobs are involved. I hope that OFMDFM become involved in respect of sustainable development. Very many issues need to be resolved, and I look forward to receiving the planning application.
Adjourned at 6.59 pm.